/p/ - Photography » Thread #3156513

[92 / 21 / ?]

1MiB, 2434x2393, IMG_7684.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sat 23 Sep 2017 20:58:06 No.3156513 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3157402 >>3169646 >>3172403

Here we go lads finally got myself a box of the new formula Polaroid

fucking cuck !!L1lx81epp6B

fucking cuck !!L1lx81epp6B Sat 23 Sep 2017 21:05:19 No.3156515 Report

Quoted By:

wew lad

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Sep 2017 21:05:55 No.3156516 Report

Quoted By:

Post pic of flowerpot to demonstrate superior borkeh

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Sep 2017 23:48:30 No.3156583 Report

Quoted By: >>3156585

how long to develop?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Sep 2017 23:51:30 No.3156585 Report

Quoted By: >>3164666

>>3156583
72 hours, expect OP to post results in a few days ;^)

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1459709179645.png, 243KiB, 431x400

Anonymous Sun 24 Sep 2017 00:01:23 No.3156589 Report

Quoted By: >>3156603

>still only 8 shots in a pack

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Sep 2017 00:21:16 No.3156603 Report

Quoted By: >>3156619 >>3160748

>>3156589
price on these went from 24 to 19

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Sep 2017 00:43:21 No.3156619 Report

Quoted By: >>3156713

>>3156603
Well I guess that's not too bad since deadstock FP-100C has officially broken the $25 mark.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Sep 2017 03:39:01 No.3156713 Report

Quoted By: >>3156723 >>3156724 >>3156726

>>3156619
that would be funny if this triggers fuji into reviving peel apart.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC00527.jpg, 767KiB, 1024x684

Anonymous Sun 24 Sep 2017 03:55:45 No.3156723 Report

Quoted By: >>3156787

>>3156713
My body is ready.
>Film in the mail.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Sep 2017 04:03:11 No.3156724 Report

Quoted By: >>3156728

>>3156713
peel apart died because it was so niche it made them no money. the popularity of instax or polaroid changes nothing

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Sep 2017 04:12:57 No.3156726 Report

Quoted By:

>>3156713
the polaroid site has 8x10, hopefully they will bring back some 669 and type 59
i like the shit colour of polaroid more than fuji anyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Sep 2017 04:16:45 No.3156728 Report

Quoted By:

>>3156724
Pretty much yeah. The only thing to put a fire under Fujifilm would be if Polaroid resurrected their old peel apart, and that's pretty damn far fetched if you ask me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Sep 2017 06:44:28 No.3156787 Report

Quoted By: >>3156795

>>3156723

>shooting 600 film in a 700

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Sep 2017 07:04:52 No.3156795 Report

Quoted By: >>3156799

>>3156787
No dumb ass, I ordered the SX-70 pack.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Sep 2017 07:08:31 No.3156799 Report

Quoted By: >>3156800

>>3156795
nothing changed in the 700 formula tho

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Sep 2017 07:09:57 No.3156800 Report

Quoted By:

>>3156799
oh serious?
>well sheeeit

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_7686.jpg, 901KiB, 2446x3006

Anonymous Sun 24 Sep 2017 20:08:54 No.3157131 Report

Quoted By: >>3157160 >>3157366 >>3157372 >>3157379 >>3157688 >>3160601 >>3164547

The sky was a deep blue when I took the picture. This is it after 30 min

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Sep 2017 20:37:16 No.3157160 Report

Quoted By:

>>3157131

You got hornswoggled my man. Instax would have handled that scene with ease.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_7715.jpg, 948KiB, 2370x2391

Anonymous Mon 25 Sep 2017 02:10:41 No.3157366 Report

Quoted By: >>3157372 >>3157379 >>3157417 >>3157688 >>3160601

>>3157131
And two more, same color issue

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Sep 2017 02:23:26 No.3157372 Report

Quoted By:

>>3157366
>>3157131

So this is the power of film... woah

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Sep 2017 02:55:48 No.3157379 Report

Quoted By:

>>3157131
>>3157366
>19 dollars for this crap

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Sep 2017 05:01:55 No.3157402 Report

Quoted By:

>>3156513
>new formula
TOP KEK

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Sep 2017 05:38:00 No.3157417 Report

Quoted By: >>3157569

>>3157366
>soft as fuck
As espected from a plastic lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Sep 2017 13:14:56 No.3157526 Report

Quoted By: >>3157569

What camera are you using?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Sep 2017 14:40:06 No.3157569 Report

Quoted By: >>3157704

>>3157526
>>3157417
shouldnt be plastic. I'm using an SLR 680 SE

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Sep 2017 18:53:10 No.3157688 Report

Quoted By:

>>3157366
>>3157131
wtf are these colors

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO akif pol02.png, 278KiB, 334x410

Anonymous Mon 25 Sep 2017 19:06:59 No.3157704 Report

Quoted By: >>3157713 >>3158280 >>3158425 >>3159825 >>3170710

>>3157569
Why is it soft then? sx 70 type cameras are sharper than this. Is this the shit film's fault?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Sep 2017 19:17:14 No.3157713 Report

Quoted By: >>3157718 >>3157722 >>3157730

>>3157704
and its an autofocus too, every image was in focus before i pressed the shutter. its gotta be the film. I shot IP b&w before this and those came out pretty sharp

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Sep 2017 19:33:49 No.3157718 Report

Quoted By:

>>3157713
I heard the emulsion is too thicc (since 8 exposures per pack) that is why it isn't as sharp as old polaroid film.

I still don't believe in their jewish trick saying they can only fit 8 photos in a pack.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Sep 2017 19:46:25 No.3157722 Report

Quoted By: >>3157723 >>3157728

>>3157713
>it's gotta be the film

You're using an old camera, who knows any number of issues may be wrong with it. I've shot IP film on my SX-70 and it's sharp as fuck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Sep 2017 19:48:20 No.3157723 Report

Quoted By:

>>3157722
BUT THE COLORS AAAAAAAAAA

yall been jewed and this goy is some salesman trying to convince you of the contrary.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Sep 2017 19:53:55 No.3157728 Report

Quoted By:

>>3157722
>sharp as fuck
You can't say that here without proof

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_7569.jpg, 279KiB, 1122x1334

Anonymous Mon 25 Sep 2017 19:56:37 No.3157730 Report

Quoted By:

>>3157713
heres some scans of the stuff i shot on the IP film with my 680. The camera has only been used a few times, and i received it in its original box with all packing material from a man who bought it in the 80s and passed away

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Sep 2017 20:11:29 No.3157734 Report

Quoted By:

Since this is the current instant thread, would it be better blowing money on Lomo's Glass Magellan or their new Square? One can shoot square while the other has f/4.5

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO FB_IMG_1506400896798.jpg, 176KiB, 1677x2048

Anonymous Tue 26 Sep 2017 04:42:45 No.3157937 Report

Quoted By: >>3158217 >>3160595 >>3160601

Photo: @mingchan_mc |

SLR670-S & Polaroid Originals 600 film

Colour is washed out here too

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Sep 2017 06:07:08 No.3157953 Report

Quoted By: >>3157993 >>3159856

I have an Instax mini and while I really enjoy it, I was thinking about jumping ship and trying out the Onestep 2 however I'm worried since I don't see any actual semi-trustworthy reviewers getting their hands on it, thoughts?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Sep 2017 07:54:24 No.3157993 Report

Quoted By: >>3158219

>>3157953
It's not out until next month I think

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Sep 2017 17:01:41 No.3158217 Report

Quoted By:

>>3157937
faded as hell

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Sep 2017 17:05:14 No.3158219 Report

Quoted By: >>3158335

>>3157993
But places like Cnet have their hands on it somehow which makes me think they're going for non-critical """Influencers""""

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Sep 2017 20:06:16 No.3158280 Report

Quoted By: >>3158435

>>3157704
nice ... any higher res?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Sep 2017 21:40:42 No.3158335 Report

Quoted By:

>>3158219
Probably a soft launch or a preview event or some sort? Straight copy paste from their official page/storefront:

"This item is available for pre-order only. It’s estimated to ship on October 16, 2017."

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO FxIW1aI.jpg, 79KiB, 540x720

Anonymous Tue 26 Sep 2017 23:40:27 No.3158425 Report

Quoted By:

>>3157704
>tfw no asian gf to throw dogfood at and take naked pics of

why live

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Sep 2017 23:51:43 No.3158435 Report

Quoted By:

>>3158280
Go to his site

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO sketch-1506639772470.png, 1MiB, 1080x1314

Anonymous Thu 28 Sep 2017 23:03:47 No.3159818 Report

Quoted By: >>3159820 >>3159867 >>3160130 >>3160601 >>3160748 >>3164547

SLR670-S & Polaroid Originals 600 film

Someone convince me this film isn't shit

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO sketch-1506639787771.png, 968KiB, 1080x1314

Anonymous Thu 28 Sep 2017 23:04:50 No.3159819 Report

Quoted By: >>3159820 >>3159867 >>3160130 >>3160601 >>3164547

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 Sep 2017 23:07:03 No.3159820 Report

Quoted By:

>>3159818
>>3159819
yiiiikes. class action lawsuit when?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 Sep 2017 23:18:01 No.3159825 Report

Quoted By: >>3159873

>>3157704
>his work gets reposted on porn sites in china
>refuses to have them taken down even after the model asks
>accused by a number of models for being inappropriate while tying them up for shoots

I like his work (this polaroid is great), but from what I've heard (1st and 2nd hand accounts) he's a creepy dude.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 Sep 2017 00:12:06 No.3159856 Report

Quoted By:

>>3157953

Get an instax wide and love life.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1506188346147.gif, 795KiB, 245x168

Anonymous Fri 29 Sep 2017 00:46:04 No.3159867 Report

Quoted By: >>3159868

>>3159818
>>3159819
>the ABSOLUTE state of filmcucks

So glad I didn't fall for this hipster meme

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 Sep 2017 00:56:32 No.3159868 Report

Quoted By:

>>3159867
>instant film

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 Sep 2017 01:01:56 No.3159873 Report

Quoted By:

>>3159825
Tell me moar about that, senpai.

>hurr I've agreed to spread my puccie to be photographed but...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 Sep 2017 14:20:01 No.3160130 Report

Quoted By:

>>3159819
>>3159818
OP here, I sympathize. These colors are whack

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO FB_IMG_1506400896798-01-01.jpg, 448KiB, 1677x2048

Anonymous Sat 30 Sep 2017 05:04:14 No.3160595 Report

Quoted By:

>>3157937
Dunno, but I used Snapseed

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 7865400988.jpg, 8KiB, 250x207

Anonymous Sat 30 Sep 2017 05:16:08 No.3160601 Report

Quoted By:

>>3157131
>>3157366
>>3157937
>>3159818
>>3159819
So you buy this hipster shit meme that needed to be scanned because you have to fix it with a photo editor since they look shit?

Dayummmm

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Sep 2017 11:42:16 No.3160748 Report

Quoted By: >>3173518

>>3156603
Still more than twice the cost of Instax wide.

>>3159818
Holy shit.
Wasn't expecting it to be this crap, honestly. Was it so hard to do better than Instax, for this price? I mean it's not like the instax line is perfect, the colours aren't realistic and they are really high contrast, but at least they're sharp and look nice.

This is literal hipster shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Oct 2017 22:15:31 No.3163518 Report

Quoted By: >>3163539

I don't remember the old polaroid film being this washed out

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Oct 2017 22:58:14 No.3163539 Report

Quoted By:

>>3163518
Your eyes saw colors more vibrantly back then, old man.

(But seriously, though—they basically had to recreate the Polaroid process from scratch, so yeah, the colors aren’t as good yet)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Oct 2017 23:50:03 No.3163560 Report

Quoted By: >>3163618 >>3164015

I wish there was a website/thread comparing the same scenes shot on instax wide and 600 film with at least 1000x1000 scans. I don't know if the human race is capable of such a feat...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Oct 2017 01:16:32 No.3163618 Report

Quoted By:

>>3163560
Do you have links to said website? Which was superior?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Oct 2017 13:07:11 No.3164015 Report

Quoted By:

>>3163560
if only

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Oct 2017 08:10:15 No.3164543 Report

Quoted By:

I guess I'll have to stick with wide fuji or lomo square.. Was really hopeful this would be the rebirth of polaroid, but long exposure time, expensiveand for what.. Washed out soft snaps. No thanks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Oct 2017 08:19:05 No.3164547 Report

Quoted By:

>>3157131
>>3159818
>>3159819
It looks like they benchmarked 100% crops from minilab scans of vista 200 from some zoom compact where the flash failed to fire when they were deciding how sharp this film needed to be.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 17-10-05-19-32-38-315_deco.jpg, 3MiB, 2559x2559

Anonymous Thu 05 Oct 2017 08:33:11 No.3164549 Report

Quoted By: >>3164569 >>3164651

My favourite parts from Gizmodos review for the One step 2 and film
I've been using the $US100 (about $180 shipped to Australia) OneStep 2 for a couple weeks. It sucks. But it sucks in that charming Polaroid way. The photos look awful in the way that your parents' (or grandparents') snapshots from decades past look

Even the design is awkward, as it pays tribute to the odd boxy shape of the original OneStep with its shutter button on the front which forces you to twist your wrist in an unnatural direction.

The OneStep 2 sucks, but you know what? I kind of like it.

The problem is that the photos look like garbage. I went through three cartridges of film (one colour, two black-and-white) and honestly swear I walked away with two decent photos, one of which I didn't take.

The colour photos, for instance, are washed out, like they have been sitting in a drawer since the Carter administration. Some of the black-and-white photos look like a failed chemistry experiment, after the development process left parts of the image under or overexposed creating an almost smoky effect.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 120.jpg, 511KiB, 900x600

Anonymous Thu 05 Oct 2017 10:09:23 No.3164569 Report

Quoted By: >>3164651 >>3166221

>>3164549
>But it sucks in that charming Polaroid way. The photos look awful in the way that your parents' (or grandparents') snapshots from decades past look

I want to cry.
Polaroids were used as proof shots by photographers. They didn't suck. They were actually pretty good.
What you're thinking about is the Lomo culture that came afterwards.

Pic related. These are freaking Polaroids.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Oct 2017 14:04:52 No.3164651 Report

Quoted By: >>3164659 >>3164674

>>3164569
>>3164549
>they look like they did in the 70s

yeah and in the 70s they didnt cost $25 for eight fucking shots. If youre gonna market your film as "vintage colors" dont make it so fucking expensive

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Oct 2017 14:26:25 No.3164659 Report

Quoted By:

>>3164651
do they also degrade and go to fuck quickly?

because 50 yo aged polaroids look like fresh out of the box current """polaroids"""", so what do we expect these Impossible abominations to look 50 years from now?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Oct 2017 14:44:46 No.3164666 Report

Quoted By:

>>3156585
kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Oct 2017 15:05:40 No.3164674 Report

Quoted By: >>3164684

>>3164651
> yeah and in the 70s they didnt cost $25 for eight fucking shots.
An 8-shot pack doesn't actually cost $25 today, either, it costs $19 (Source: https://us.polaroidoriginals.com/products/color-instant-film-for-600?utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=googlepla&variant=971062738970&gclid=Cj0KCQjwsNfOBRCWARIsAGITapar8Ifk2tYU5iUCtCcx1vT4aSdyvYDEjRF-sduYJo3pR1E6Eik5AvAaAo8xEALw_wcB)

Couldn't find numbers for the 70s, but in 1981/82, a 10-shot pack was $7.29 (Source: http://www.cameramanuals.org/booklets/sears_1981-82.pdf third from last page)

Inflation calculator at https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=7.29&year1=198101&year2=201708 tells me that $7.29 in 1981 is worth $20.57 now.

So, running the numbers on that, you're looking at a price increase from about $2.05/shot to about $2.38/shot.

Given the R&D costs of basically redeveloping Polaroid film from scratch, and given that Polaroid film is now a much, much lower-volume business, I'd say this is an extremely reasonable price increase.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Oct 2017 15:16:12 No.3164684 Report

Quoted By: >>3164688

>>3164674
neat but dont forget, 10 shot pack vs 8 shots now. we're losing 2 images and paying around the same price

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Oct 2017 15:23:08 No.3164688 Report

Quoted By:

>>3164684
>neat but dont forget, 10 shot pack vs 8 shots now. we're losing 2 images and paying around the same price

I didn't forget that; I calculated the per-shot cost.

$20.57/10 ~=$2.05
$19/8 ~= $2.38

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO highres-Instax-SQ10-photos_15004 (...).jpg, 225KiB, 1000x817

Anonymous Sat 07 Oct 2017 06:53:41 No.3165860 Report

Quoted By: >>3166207

What's fujis square film like in comparison?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Oct 2017 21:44:37 No.3166207 Report

Quoted By:

>>3165860
These are digital prints on analog film/paper. It's not photography.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Oct 2017 22:06:16 No.3166221 Report

Quoted By: >>3166278 >>3171704

>>3164569
Yes this is VERY important to remember. Impossible never managed to perfect Polaroids formula, and never will, so they stuck with the lomo crowd, and since polaroids were ageing and thus the colours looked off, they said thats how they are supposed to look. Not true. Take any instax wide for example to see how a true instant picture should look.They should basically be big colourful positive prints, not some weird yellowy print.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Oct 2017 23:37:28 No.3166278 Report

Quoted By: >>3166581

>>3166221
>instax
instax looks so shit. dunno what it is, but the colors are so trash, the whole image is shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Oct 2017 15:21:46 No.3166581 Report

Quoted By:

>>3166278
Its not "that" shity anon. Its just flash balanced, too fast for outdoor and low latitude film just like slides. I will post some examples later. I'm the guy taking instax photos with a TLR.

They are perfect for flash and indoors photography

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Oct 2017 21:37:36 No.3169646 Report

Quoted By: >>3169647

>>3156513
So what's the verdict

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Oct 2017 21:41:31 No.3169647 Report

Quoted By:

>>3169646

I mean, did you look at the thread?

BurtGummer !!1cdp+8vuoOY

BurtGummer !!1cdp+8vuoOY Fri 13 Oct 2017 21:53:33 No.3169651 Report

Quoted By:

>Photographer takes polaroid photographs
>Receives washed out soft photos
>The horror

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO BLUE_STREAKS.png, 5MiB, 1475x1766

Anonymous Sat 14 Oct 2017 06:41:01 No.3169777 Report

Quoted By: >>3170598 >>3171631

I have been using impossible's film for some time now, and I keep getting these blue streaks on the bottom of my pictures. is anyone else having these problems? It doesnt happen on all of the photos I take but a good number of them have this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 15 Oct 2017 21:29:35 No.3170598 Report

Quoted By: >>3171631

>>3169777
I got those as well, i think its a roller issue

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 16 Oct 2017 01:02:48 No.3170710 Report

Quoted By:

>>3157704
This is a great photo. Digicucks could never take a photo this good

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO SCAN0008 - Kopie.jpg, 100KiB, 734x897

Anonymous Tue 17 Oct 2017 11:45:39 No.3171631 Report

Quoted By: >>3171634

>>3169777
>>3170598
I had those problems in the beginning. It happens from light exposure directly after the ejection. It went away after I bought IPs frog tongue.

Pic related just a recent shot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Oct 2017 11:50:37 No.3171634 Report

Quoted By:

>>3171631
if i bought a product and got this result i would have sued the company already.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Oct 2017 14:13:56 No.3171704 Report

Quoted By:

>>3166221
i think this sums it up well, until Polaroid ditches lomo, its going to be shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Oct 2017 17:16:24 No.3172403 Report

Quoted By:

>>3156513
Let me know when they start putting 10 images in a pack again

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Oct 2017 17:23:57 No.3172407 Report

Quoted By: >>3173513

washed out? but it has that perfect hipster aesthetic.....

DAT A E S T H E T I C

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Scan_20170928 (5).png, 2MiB, 1044x1238

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 04:09:48 No.3173350 Report

Quoted By: >>3173354

From what I can tell, impossible's formula doesn't play too well with outside lighting. Pictures that I have taken indoors or in reduced light settings with flash on seem to come out the best. alternatively it helps to shoot on a cloudy day or if your subject is in the shade, that being said the results still aren't great, but if you really want to shoot on this film do not do it on a sunny day.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Scan_20170814 (11).png, 3MiB, 1245x1491

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 04:11:38 No.3173354 Report

Quoted By:

>>3173350
Here's an example of in the shade.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 11:18:00 No.3173513 Report

Quoted By:

>>3172407
Eh, recklessly pursuing aesthetic was fun when we all had vaporwave blasting through our headphones but it's almost 2018 and we expect more from our ancient technologies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 11:50:10 No.3173518 Report

Quoted By:

>>3160748
it's overexposed you turbo autist calm down

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Oct 2017 00:25:40 No.3173977 Report

Quoted By:

makes me sad

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches