Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×
Our response time is longer than usual currently. We're working to answer users as quickly as possible and thank you for your continued patience.

[Poll] Do you need a DAM? And what should it be like?


Do you need a DAM-program by Serif? And what should it be like?  

421 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you need a DAM?

    • No thanks. I'm just fine with the OS native File Browser / I happily use a 3rd party program for browsing my assets and RAW editing.
      63
    • Yes. I would like to have an Asset Browser. It should provide reliable Preview of all Affinity filetypes and of other popular file types. I do not work with RAW files / the current RAW editing implementation works well for my needs.
      75
    • Yes. I would like to have an Asset Browser, but it needs to have a powerful RAW processor built in. I often work with numerous files which need common base-corrections as well as individual tweaking – therefore the Develop Persona and working on single files one at a time doesn't cut it for me. I would appreciate better interchange with 3rd party RAW editors, hence sidecar files were very helpful. Affinity still could embed the RAW file along with its settings for compositing with other artwork – but in a way that one can return to the DAM for further tweaking of the input RAW file. Note: This implementation should work equally well for those who voted for 2).
      283


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LondonSquirrel said:

I use ACDSee on Mac. I have given ACDSee feedback on totally trivial suggested improvements, and asked time and time again for a better search system, but these requests have fallen on deaf ears. They just don't want to do it. By far the best search system I've used in any software was in Aperture.

Aperture was light years ahead of the competition when Apple decided to kill it / embed some of its functionality in photos. In many ways some of its more desirable features have still not been duplicated.

 

RIP Aperture

iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2017) Mac OS 13 | 4.2 GHz Quad Core Intel-Core i7 | 64GB Ram | Radeon Pro 580 8 GB

Adobe Photography (Lightroom and Photoshop) | Affinity Designer 2 | Affinity Photo 2 | Affinity Publisher 2 | Capture One Pro (for now) | Topaz Labs Photography Suite | Fast Raw Viewer | NeoFinder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LondonSquirrel said:

I use ACDSee on Mac. I have given ACDSee feedback on totally trivial suggested improvements, and asked time and time again for a better search system, but these requests have fallen on deaf ears. They just don't want to do it. By far the best search system I've used in any software was in Aperture.

1 minute ago, KC Honie said:

Aperture was light years ahead of the competition when Apple decided to kill it / embed some of its functionality in photos. In many ways some of its more desirable features have still not been duplicated.

 

RIP Aperture

 

Aperture, for image management, is still (IMHO) king. There just isn't anything available that can do what it can do with ease and speed… and then there's the Light Table feature, which is still unique (within the world of photo editing/management apps) to Aperture.

Despite Aperture being killed off by Apple years ago, I still keep it running happily on a dedicated older Mac to maintain a massive library of edited/completed images. Whilst Capture One has taken over the batch image processing duties, its image management abilities are shockingly bad in comparison to Aperture.

Every time an image editing/management app has been released or got updated, the feeling of disappointment continues as all the developers seem to concentrate on nowadays are new features that might create headlines or outdo their competitors. Feels a bit like the car manufacturers game of chasing stupid horsepower or acceleration figures. I really wish someone, anyone (I no longer care if Serif/Affinity can/will do this or not, but great if they can/will), would come up with a proper image management alternative to Aperture that goes beyond just the basics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2021 at 5:15 AM, Ash777 said:

@GFS It sounds like you may be using different software/platform that I have used because what you're saying about a RAW file never getting altered with a photo app is unfortunately not true everywhere. For example, Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) will embed metadata relating to edits into the raw *.CR3 files. I have firmly confirmed this with zero doubt.

As I noted, you can alter metadata in a RAW file, which theoretically may be a problem, however, you cannot edit/alter the image itself.

Grumpy, but faithful (watch out all you cats)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, GFS said:

@GFS It sounds like you may be using different software/platform that I have used because what you're saying about a RAW file never getting altered with a photo app is unfortunately not true everywhere. For example, Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) will embed metadata relating to edits into the raw *.CR3 files. I have firmly confirmed this with zero doubt.

Ok, so what part of the metadata have you been able to alter? The IPTC/XMP or EXIF? Those are editable fields,except EXIF is really not. However I'm not familiar with any photo editing software, to include LR, and Canon's DPP, that will allow you to actually edit the information, RAW DATA, that is used to produce the image. Actually AP provides us a look at the RAW data, where other apps do not.

Yes programs like Canon DPP, and LR, store edits into files, that are XMP, sometimes referred to as side-car files, as to what adjustments have been done. However it does not, alter the original RAW file produced by the camera. For example LR, maintains this data, and only when you export, those edits are used to produce a common format image, like jpg, tiff, psd, png, ect. You can not create a RAW file from those edits.

Try this, open a RAW file in DPP or LR, or whatever program that will process RAW files. Do some adjustments to that file, easiest to see the changes is do a black/white adjustment. Now I know when you close DPP it will ask if you want to save the changes, of course say yes. Now open that same image in another program, or better yet, use File Explorer (Windows) or whatever Mac's use, to open that image. I'm guessing you're not going to see the edits, just the RAW, or really the embedded jpg, image. That's the beauty of working with digital RAW files. You can not overwrite them.

 

Affinity Photo 2.5..; Affinity Designer 2.5..; Affinity Publisher 2.5..; Affinity2 Beta versions. Affinity Photo,Designer 1.10.6.1605 Win10 Home Version:21H2, Build: 19044.1766: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5820K CPU @ 3.30GHz, 3301 Mhz, 6 Core(s), 12 Logical Processor(s);32GB Ram, Nvidia GTX 3070, 3-Internal HDD (1 Crucial MX5000 1TB, 1-Crucial MX5000 500GB, 1-WD 1 TB), 4 External HDD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to reply to my above post, since I just completed some tests, using Canon's DPP.

I shoot Canon cameras, so have thousands of RAW (CR2) images to work with. I had to download and install it, since I haven't used it in quite some time. I fired it up, and proceeded to edit one of my CR2 files. Made several adjustments, one being changing it to monochrome. I then Saved it. This appears to create another CR2, RAW file. However I'm not sure right now, what it is. It also appeared to have the edits applied. However, using File Explorer, I could see that same file, that DPP saved, and it was not monochrome or show any edits I had done. Saving the file, brought up a dialog where I could produce a ..........jpeg file, or another format, but NOT another RAW file.

This saved RAW file did show the edits, inside of DPP only. I even opened the edited, monochrome file that DPP shows is a CR2 RAW file in AP and LR. What's puzzling is, that file does open as a RAW file, in both, however it does not have any editing applied. It's like DPP just copied the CR2 file I used to start with.

Anyway, so far, like I posted earlier, the RAW files can not be edited/altered. LR does provide for minimal altering of EXIF, I think that being the creation date of a file. The XMP data and IPTC of course can be, but neither contain actual image altering data.

Affinity Photo 2.5..; Affinity Designer 2.5..; Affinity Publisher 2.5..; Affinity2 Beta versions. Affinity Photo,Designer 1.10.6.1605 Win10 Home Version:21H2, Build: 19044.1766: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5820K CPU @ 3.30GHz, 3301 Mhz, 6 Core(s), 12 Logical Processor(s);32GB Ram, Nvidia GTX 3070, 3-Internal HDD (1 Crucial MX5000 1TB, 1-Crucial MX5000 500GB, 1-WD 1 TB), 4 External HDD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2021 at 1:15 PM, GFS said:

As I noted, you can alter metadata in a RAW file, which theoretically may be a problem, however, you cannot edit/alter the image itself.

@GFS I think a potential point of confusion may be around whether we're discussing editing RAW file pixel data to achieve some desired aesthetic outcome versus editing the file in any manner (aka "touching" or modifying the file in any way).

Given the nature of RAW files, their relative large size, that they represent as best of an original of sensor data one can capture/maintain, that we can store aesthetic modifications quite effectively in very small sidecar files (when such a feature is available), my very strong preference and workflow policy is to never ever ever ever modify a RAW file at all, not for metadata, not for pixel data (where I'm not referring to pixel data in my OP... forgive any confusion).

Probably obvious to you but fwiw, there are two primary reasons I have this policy:

  • To avoid modifying/editing the original image in any manner whatsoever in order to keep the original as "The" original.
  • To avoid impact to backup costs and time when applying minor edits to many RAW files which have already (previously) been backed up.

The first reason applies to any of my original media files. I completely dislike any program that uses the original video/photo data file... whether RAW, JPG, mp4, container does not matter... as a place to store metadata. A companion file, or sidecar file, is not only very good for that, but it makes life simpler in the area of backup, and it is safer by reducing the chances a program meant to edit such metadata will corrupt the file in some manner.

So forgive the confusing point there... I'm not referring to pixel editing or purposeful changes for aesthetic goals... I'm basically saying my original file is like an original film negative to me... I do not want programs "scribbling" on the original... use a sidecar file please.

If an OS had a feature to lock or prevent any program from writing to my media files, I would activate it. There is simply no reason for it and I've had loads of headaches from it over the years.

Embedding info is very user friendly... people like the idea that their comments, info, or even RAW edits can be embedded into the same file as the image data... but each time a program does that, there is more risk than otherwise than your media will get botched. While it does not happen most of the time, it can happen.

Even for updates that are by design/desired, the backup hassles are beyond annoying... 

Example with backup:

  • I return from photo assignment, backup 2000 RAW images to media, cloud, whatever is used.
  • I select like 100 of them (with current DPP I'm using, this modifies the RAW file).
  • I adjust exposure slightly to the 100 selections.
  • After doing that, you have two outcomes depending on whether metadata is stored in orig media or sidecar file...
    • in former case, embedding in orig media ... when you go backup changed files, you must back up all 100 including pixel data (the majority of data) which has not even changed.
    • with sidecar files, you perform a very quick low cost backup of a 100 small, what amount to text files basically.

And the backup nightmares can get worse... some programs will scan your drive and start embedding metadata. A very popular DAM did this once... and guess what? When I went to backup only changed files, all of those media files written to by the DAM now need to be fully backed up again. And if you are talking cloud backup... arrgh. 😵

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ron P. said:

...Anyway, so far, like I posted earlier, the RAW files can not be edited/altered. LR does provide for minimal altering of EXIF, I think that being the creation date of a file. The XMP data and IPTC of course can be, but neither contain actual image altering data.

I'm talking about any modification to original media... I have not seen a program that makes purposeful perm changes to pixel data in RAW image files... but last time I used RAW with a DAM, they were CR2, and the DAM used sidecar files, so kept its hands off modifying the CR2 at all (which is just my personal preference... see prior post for details).

Regarding my use of DPP with CR3 (new RAW files), I now see DPP is modifying RAW files even for embedding metadata which I do not allow in my workflow. Maybe DPP always allowed that... I have not used DPP as primary DAM before... was trying it out recently saw observed this. 

I'm using DPP 4 (version 4.15.0.0)...

image.png.b22564be8b5b75adaa31c2e0d7b785ad.png 

...and after changing either a CR2 or CR3 exposure slightly, DPP saves the changes to both the CR2 and CR3 (i.e., RAW file type does not seem to make a difference). The following shows the last write date/time after applying the exposure edit just now...

image.png.08013c38d91beaec0847b6c20f761e09.png  

..and the write operations were confirmed using a monitoring tool when saving all of the changes...

image.png.ca1095dd7f205f3efa8c1371e8205066.png

...from above you can see offsets are near end of file... so yeah, not pixel data, embedded metadata... but my personal workflow/process wants to never touch the original.

Embedding metadata can be super painful if you have huge video footage files and some "friendly" editing tool comes along and places your metadata in the file... I start pulling hair like you've never seen. There is an NLE that, if you place a marker on the "original" clip (and not a "track" or "timeline"), the marker gets embedded in the file itself. So if you do that to a 5GB video file, for example, and then you run a backup on changed files, you end up backing up the entire 5GB again simply because of a silly small marker.

There are times when embedding is great... like sending media out where you want copyright and some such in the actual file... I am definitely not against embedding... I just think any real pro DAM should default to sidecar files, and therefore allow sidecar files generally (regardless of any defaults)... when sidecars not supported, or the default is to start writing to my large and/or many media files, I cringe. :) ...

I realize each person has their pref... definitely not saying it's one size fits all... but I do have a hunch that many users do not always see the benefits of sidecar files.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, UweN said:

then try Daminion. It uses a PostgreSQL database for the managemant of the files and their tags. The thumbnails are *.dat files (small JPG) on the disk.

When you have to contact the company to find out their pricing, it's unlikely the options will be favorable for the single user or for a small business. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

When you have to contact the company to find out their pricing, it's unlikely the options will be favorable for the single user or for a small business. 

I  suppose they hope you will download the app and decide how much you like it, before you discover how overpriced it is and can't really afford it! 😉

Acer XC-895 : Core i5-10400 Hexa-core 2.90 GHz :  32GB RAM : Intel UHD Graphics 630 : Windows 10 Home
Affinity Publisher 2 : Affinity Photo 2 : Affinity Designer 2 : (latest release versions) on desktop and iPad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2021 at 12:37 AM, Ash777 said:

Regarding my use of DPP with CR3 (new RAW files), I now see DPP is modifying RAW files even for embedding metadata which I do not allow in my workflow. Maybe DPP always allowed that... I have not used DPP as primary DAM before... was trying it out recently saw observed this. 

Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) is not a DAM, at least not in the same sense as Adobe Bridge or even XNViewMP are DAMs; it is not a general asset manager for all sorts of file types. It is simply intended to process, edit, enhance, organize and analyze your raw image files. It can also process JPEG files, but its primary application is to provide the best way to get the most out of your Canon raw files—in a similar sense to using Olympus Workspace to get the most out of your Olympus raw files.

DPP can also write Canon-proprietary info to Canon-specific fields in their raw files. There's a lot of debate about whether or not this is "kosher," but I think the only answer to that question is: It depends upon what your goals are.

When I shot Canon more regularly, I always enjoyed the results from DPP. It's not as fast as tools such as Capture One Pro, nor as intuitive as Lightroom. But there's no arguing with the image quality it produces.

NOTE: I only just realized that Canon also makes a mobile version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has some age. Meanwhile I doubt Affinity will dip their toes into the dirty pond of DAM. My solution would be simple: revive Aperture and I'm a happy user again.

Just seeing Apple Photos makes it very clear that this caravan is heading only deeper into dusty, boring, cloud desert. All other suggestions here: I was looking into a couple of them, basically files browsers with inbuilt viewers, rather poor organisation capabilities and then there's the fact that Affinity wants to be compatible with Windows. Windows didn't even "invent" something like intelligent folders until today. First we Apple users were good enough to lift Affinity out of insignificance (compared with Adobe) and now 3 million installations and 3 years with no more efforts to get an Affinity DAM are telling "get lost, Mac people, we don't need you any longer".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LondonSquirrel, I think, it would be very hard for Apple to revive Aperture. The main developer left Apple, don't know, if it was his decision or Apple sacking him. He tried to start RAWPower as a plugin of Photos, but Photos itself is such a degeneration of the former great Apple apps (like iPhoto, iTunes, Pages or Numbers – great in a simple way of usability). All of the new versions lack some of the unique features of the former one, often the main features and reasons to use them.

Every other company trying to do something like Aperture was, is very much depending on Apple. Could they afford the development of of a converter for continuously flowing "new" RAW-formats (which are usually only a way to keep the camera company's customers within the bounds of their chicken-cage)? To generate enough cash-flow, the app needs to be compatible with Windows (see Affinity, Capture One...) and soon a weak system dictates development rules.

I remember the days when "professional photogs" claimed their system of file-storage and -naming (they called it "system") to be superior to Apple Aperture's. Which was never true, I always found my files faster than anybody with a folder based structure. And after finding could do much more with them. But they were right when they said "the day Apple stops development of Aperture, my system will still be able to get my photos sorted". I would be better off if I would never have had the Aperture experience because I miss it each time when working with my images.

And the interesting thing is: most people working with LR I talked to, tell me they don't work with all this albums, collections, projects and stuff. And the others not working with LR are happy to manage their "better folder structures". So, this kind of managing images is beyond the capacities of most users. It would also be beyond mine if I hadn't organized a music library with 40.000 songs, most of them from my own CDs. Preparing dynamic searches (intelligent playlists) was key to keep everything organized. I didn't care about iTunes' internal structures, but referencing instead of copying was THE main reason to be able to DJ with such a library.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I do want to believe LR alternative or DAM is coming soon.(or any new app)
Otherwise it's not possible to justify the slowness of affinity's development in recent years.
There has been too few changes, almost nothing happened since Publisher was released.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 4 months later...

There are a LOT of softwares out there whose focus is photo editing, including Affinity.  However, there are very few that I have found that focus on what I consider to be one of the most important aspects of photography:  photo management (on Mac systems).  And - of those, none has hit a home run like the original iPhoto and Aperture.

I would be thrilled if only Affinity could make something that simply offered what iPhotos did back in 2015.  Or even better - Aperture.  When Apple dumped their support for those two programs and switched to Photos, I quit using their DAM software.   It was terribly frustrating, because all of the wonderful features in iPhoto and Aperture were discarded for a much clunkier interface that didn’t come close to the beautiful integration of their older software.

I have searched for six years for a better alternative, and come up with nothing that really satisfies. Affinity has done such a great job in the Photo, Designer and Publisher categories that I am hoping you turn your sights on DAM.  I have used ACDSee, which comes close, but there are features they lack - particularly facial recognition.  They have told me for the last 3 years they're working on it, but still haven’t managed to add that to their Mac version.  

Here are some suggestions that I think you have to have in order to become the number one software after Lightroom:  (Heck, I'd love to see you beat Lightroom)  

1.  FACES - The number one feature I believe people who buy DAM software are going to want is FACIAL RECOGNITION.  This feature is SO helpful, and if I am going to organize my photos, that is fantastic.  I can create albums for each of my kids easily with this, and it is the first thing I look for.  (Unfortunately, only Apple’s Photos offers this in the free/reasonably priced side or Adobe’s Light Room on the other hand if you like subscription.  Which many people hate, including myself).  

2.  KEY WORDS - Many DAMs are offering automatic key word algorithms.  This is really nice, so I don’t have to individually tell the program that ‘X’ picture has a dog or flower in it, it automatically tags photos for me.  This is awesome.  The new Photos does this.  

3.  SLIDE SHOWS - Automatically creating slide shows, adding music and being able to play for people is another must-have part of any good DAM.  Being able to also edit and export said shows is even better.  Photos does this as well as Adobe, but not the others that I know of.

4.  LOCATIONS - Places is probably important as well, being able to import meta data from the photos (or add it if they don’t have any), and seeing a map of where the pictures were taken.  

5.  INTERFACE:  This is where I believe Apple fails big time.  As I mentioned, their old iPhotos made everything easy - finding faces would pop on 12 or more at a time and you could easily verify whether a suggested face is the right person.  Now in Photos, you have to do it one at a time and it is very time consuming and clunky - the navigation gives you so few options.  

Another issue would be being able to view photos with various options - dark screen, one at a time, or multiple images, being able to compare two side by side, (plus having smaller thumbnails of other photos below) and having the equivalent of a loupe to zoom in real close would be great.  Aperture was the best at this - you had a lot of options to choose from.  I really miss that software.  Also - being able to manage the software without ingesting it into the program seems to be the best way.  Keeping gigabytes of photos in the places I have them organized is easier than importing into a whole new software - let along the redundancy and hard drive space.  

6.  SHARING & PRINTING - One thing I always loved about iPhotos and Aperture was the ability to create calendars, books, cards and other items right in the interface.  Then I could order those books and calendars straight from Apple.  That was awesome.  Their quality was always high and I had a lot of options.  Now with Photos, they do still allow it, but you order from a 3rd party and the interface is nowhere near as easy.  This is another way Affinity could expand it’s marketplace with ongoing sales of other products.  Also being able to post photos directly to social media is probably something many people will want.  

7.  LIGHT EDITING - One thing I’ve noticed about many of these softwares is that they load up with all kinds of tools to tweak and edit the photos.  I have Affinity Photos and Photoshop for that - I don’t really need my DAM software to do the same thing.  However, I expect you will sell a lot more of the software if you included enough EASY features that non-pros will be happy.  And of course, non-destructive editing makes more people happy.

I hope you can give this some serious consideration to adding a DAM to your line-up. I think there is room to become THE main alternatives to Adobe in this field.
Sincerely,
Rick Garside

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Rick, there is a product out there that is NOT subscription based that meets most if not all of your criteria.

Adobe Photoshop Elements comes with Adobe Organizer, which might be the DAM you’re looking for. I’ve been using it for years and have almost 100,000 pictures in it. I don’t use all of the fancy features you want, but it has them. I turn them off and define a keyword hierarchy for locations and people as well as events, but it certainly will identify people and automatically include geographical info if it’s available in the metadata.

Photoshop Elements is regularly released every ear but organizer rarely changes much. I usually only buy it again every other year just to be sure I’m relatively current. That get’s me a DAM for less than $100 (usually more like $50) every two years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I would love a Serif to build an Aperture replacement.  After Aperture was discontinued I tried to use just Photos but with a library of over 1TB in size, I really need a better way to organize and have the quick easy powerful editing solutions that Aperture once offered. 

I find myself having to go to Adobe and subscribe to use Lightroom which I'll try out.  I have resisted as long as possible but there just isn't anything else out there.  I've even tried Luminar products. 

I'd want all the same features of Aperture with the ability to create projects or at least organize for projects like Books, and prints etc.  Being able to organize, tag, rate photos, create versions non-destructively would be amazing.  I often shot in RAW so my photos are very large in size.  I'm at a point where I need to organize my libraries, break them down and manage them.  I used to be so well organized with Aperture.

I came across this thread/poll simply because I'd love Serif to build the most obvious companion to their already fantastic software. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A DAM would be useful, very useful. 'Need' is different to 'would like'. If Affinity produced a DAM that could manage Affinity files and maybe other files associated with our projects, and pricing was reasonable then I would buy it.

Almost everyone writing on this thread puts the emphasis on organising photographs. An Affinity DAM would manage all the assets associated with Affinity publisher, photo and design. That would be very powerful. Can Adobe Lightroom manage InDesign and Illustrator files?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Ok, I see this thread was started a long time ago, but there are some fairly recent comments, so I’ll join in.

What I would like the most is industry-standard metadata (EXIF, IPTC, etc) in ALL my Affinity files (Designer, Photo and Publisher), with the metadata accessible to a third-party DAM, and the ability to enter/edit in much the same way as Bridge (or even better LR).  I have a lot of files - many thousands, many of those are .PSB larger than 8GB - and I doubt I could manage my files without extensive metadata and search capabilities.

I currently use Bridge which is part of an Adobe Photo subscription, despite the fact it cannot process Affinity files. I frequently process batches of RAW files that need identical (or very similar) edits, and Bridge with ACR does that well.  I don’t like subscriptions, but I haven’t found an alternative to Bridge yet.

My Photo subscription includes Lightroom Classic, and I found that attractive primarily because it allows you to accumulate multiple edits in the catalog, which you can export to the associated files in a single write operation.  I almost never do image edits in LR because it lacks Photoshop capabilities that I need for large files (that may have changed).

My biggest annoyances with Bridge are

  1. It seems to try to apply edits almost immediately they’re entered, so multiple edits to a single file usually leads to multiple writes to the same file, which is very time-consuming for large files.
  2. It can’t really manage my growing collection of Affinity files (I compensate by creating exports to carry the metadata).

I would very seriously consider switching to a capable DAM with full support for industry-standard metadata and file formats, especially if sold under terms similar to what Affinity currently offers (full offline functionality, no data exfiltration, no subscription).  Periodic paid upgrades are fine - the folk making these tools should be paid for their efforts.  An approach that uses text sidecar files, like .XMP files, might be a good solution.

I am very unlikely to use a web-based solution.

Regards

Lionel

Edited by LionelD
Clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.