Steve Ridges
Stunt Coordinator
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2000
- Messages
- 180
Home Theater
Entertainment & Streaming Content
Physical Media
Home Theater Equipment and Hardware
Other Diversions
Bargains and Classifieds
Home Theater Forum
Show us your camera's best pix! Part II (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mark Shannon
- Start date
Sure, if everyone else practiced medicine on the weekends and considered themselves a very good doctor in their spare time. My point is, everyone takes pictures and think they know what they are doing. but very few do. Hell, most pros have no idea what they are doing. Plus, you are right, success in this as well as many other fields has virtually nothing to do with talent and everything to do with marketing and appearances.
Whatever you do, don't become one of those guys who simply piss in the pool for everyone else who is trying to make a living. If you are going to work for pay, expect reasonable pay and don't do it for peanuts.
Steve, how do you like your S2? I am using an S1 because digital hasn't been a big part of my work, but that is seriously changing now. I'd like to just skip past the S2 and go to the S3 if and when it actually comes out, but it is just a bit pricey.
Whatever you do, don't become one of those guys who simply piss in the pool for everyone else who is trying to make a living. If you are going to work for pay, expect reasonable pay and don't do it for peanuts.
Steve, how do you like your S2? I am using an S1 because digital hasn't been a big part of my work, but that is seriously changing now. I'd like to just skip past the S2 and go to the S3 if and when it actually comes out, but it is just a bit pricey.
Steve Ridges
Stunt Coordinator
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2000
- Messages
- 180
I've been really happy with my S2. I've had it for about a year. When I bought it, the main compitition was the D100 and 10d. The S2 has higher image quality than both of those cameras. Since that time, both Nikon and Canon have come out with new models. If I had to buy a new system TODAY and I didn't have any lenses, I'd probably buy a Canon 20d.
The S3 looks like a nice camera. I was a little disapointed in the $2500 price tag and lots of people seem to be dismising it because of it's price but if history repeats itself, the fuji will be the most expensive body in it's class and will deliver the best image quality. Thats how it was with the S1 and S2. Now, if that's whats most important to you, great. If you'd rather have faster focus, lighter weight, faster flash sync etc., perhaps another model will be better for you.
I'll be excited to see an S3 in person and play with it. It's kind of hard to get a real feel for it now because everyone on the web has started dissing it when they haven't even seen one yet.
The S3 looks like a nice camera. I was a little disapointed in the $2500 price tag and lots of people seem to be dismising it because of it's price but if history repeats itself, the fuji will be the most expensive body in it's class and will deliver the best image quality. Thats how it was with the S1 and S2. Now, if that's whats most important to you, great. If you'd rather have faster focus, lighter weight, faster flash sync etc., perhaps another model will be better for you.
I'll be excited to see an S3 in person and play with it. It's kind of hard to get a real feel for it now because everyone on the web has started dissing it when they haven't even seen one yet.
Steve,
Those are excellent photos. I like seeing this kind from others even though I don't have too much interest in making them myself. Thanks for sharing them.
John,
I understand what you mean about "pissing in the pool for everyone else" although I really need to figure out what to do in that regard right now as a starter. In fact, I just posted to ask for info/advice over in dpreview.com earlier today. Certainly, I should not cheapen the profession, but what should I do as a starter? I'm starting to get inquiries about portrait work and such, but I have no clue what kind of prices to quote when people ask. I certainly can't just base it on what the pros ask since I'm just starting out and learning this stuff myself.
In the past, I did notice that some (maybe many?) photogs start out by looking for mutual arrangements w/ new aspiring models where there's no $$$ involved, just model releases and prints for portfolios -- the idea is to help build out portfolios for both photog and model. This seems like a commonplace thing nowadays, especially w/ the impact of digital and the web -- and there are definitely a few very popular sites for this. I have personally bumped into at least one photog who suggested as much for me even when I was not looking to do anything like this a few months back -- and I'm not necessarily looking now either, occasional portrait work not-withstanding.
So anyway, John, do you have any tips on what I should do about pricing structure and such, especially given my amateur status? Or would you actually agree w/ the approach of model releases for prints w/ no pay as a start -- only in cases where that makes any sense of course?
Finally, my apologies for the O/T discussion here. I guess if this gets any further, I'll start a separate thread.
_Man_
Those are excellent photos. I like seeing this kind from others even though I don't have too much interest in making them myself. Thanks for sharing them.
John,
I understand what you mean about "pissing in the pool for everyone else" although I really need to figure out what to do in that regard right now as a starter. In fact, I just posted to ask for info/advice over in dpreview.com earlier today. Certainly, I should not cheapen the profession, but what should I do as a starter? I'm starting to get inquiries about portrait work and such, but I have no clue what kind of prices to quote when people ask. I certainly can't just base it on what the pros ask since I'm just starting out and learning this stuff myself.
In the past, I did notice that some (maybe many?) photogs start out by looking for mutual arrangements w/ new aspiring models where there's no $$$ involved, just model releases and prints for portfolios -- the idea is to help build out portfolios for both photog and model. This seems like a commonplace thing nowadays, especially w/ the impact of digital and the web -- and there are definitely a few very popular sites for this. I have personally bumped into at least one photog who suggested as much for me even when I was not looking to do anything like this a few months back -- and I'm not necessarily looking now either, occasional portrait work not-withstanding.
So anyway, John, do you have any tips on what I should do about pricing structure and such, especially given my amateur status? Or would you actually agree w/ the approach of model releases for prints w/ no pay as a start -- only in cases where that makes any sense of course?
Finally, my apologies for the O/T discussion here. I guess if this gets any further, I'll start a separate thread.
_Man_
Oh, BTW, John, not sure where your interests lie w/ the S2 (and possibly S3), but apart from Steve's reply, you might also want to check w/ a couple S2 shooters I'm familiar w/ and admire. They both have PJ backgrounds (outside of USA) although one is no longer doing that as a profession.
While the S2 apparently has its quirks -- and was out of my consideration due to $$$ issue -- it must certainly be a capable camera. And I'm not talking about resolution or low noise like the average shooter might quickly point out. Of course, a "better" body will certainly help get the shots, but as you must know like the back of your hand, it's really the photog that matters most even though it's always best to get the right tool for the right job. And personally, I find the %-age of S2 shooters that do inspiring work far exceeds the %-ages for those of other DSLRs. Of course, that might just be that I don't come across enough S2 shooters to know.
Anyway, here are links to Dirk Vermeirre's and Martin Crespo's galleries/sites. You could probably try contacting them w/ questions.
http://www.pbase.com/dievee
http://www.iso1600.com
_Man_
While the S2 apparently has its quirks -- and was out of my consideration due to $$$ issue -- it must certainly be a capable camera. And I'm not talking about resolution or low noise like the average shooter might quickly point out. Of course, a "better" body will certainly help get the shots, but as you must know like the back of your hand, it's really the photog that matters most even though it's always best to get the right tool for the right job. And personally, I find the %-age of S2 shooters that do inspiring work far exceeds the %-ages for those of other DSLRs. Of course, that might just be that I don't come across enough S2 shooters to know.
Anyway, here are links to Dirk Vermeirre's and Martin Crespo's galleries/sites. You could probably try contacting them w/ questions.
http://www.pbase.com/dievee
http://www.iso1600.com
_Man_
Man,
doing trade with models is a very common practice, especialy when starting out. Both of you are trying to get a foothold and there isn't usually much money to go around. Plus, you both benefit. What I was talking about is more the practice of always undercutting or doing price based work. Of course, being in New York, there is a completely different atmosphere than where I am. Here, one photographer with bad practices can cause serious problems for almost everyone.
For example, there was a wedding photographer here a few years back who charged outrageous prices, really touted himself as the greatest thing since sliced bread and convinced a lot of people. Problem is, he was completely incompetent. One result was that someone who hired him to shoot her daughter's wedding commented that this was proof it isn't worth it to hire a professional photographer. He caused serious problems for all wedding photographers for years. He eventually fled the country since he apparently didn't pay his taxes, or something to that effect. Even though I am a commercial photographer, he even had a negative effect on my business.
Another, much closer competitor had fixed rates for his architectural work, which is one of my major areas. He charged $75 per shot if he didn't use additional lighting and $125 if he did. He then left it up to the client as to what type of lighting they wanted. This is not only incompetent, but relies on the client making decisions the photographer is hired to make himself. Once again, bad results, like potential clients calling up and asking how much I charge per shot. My temptation was to ask them how much they charge to build a house, but of course I can't say that. No matter how absurd (not to mention too cheap) his pricing scheme was, it was easy and basically a lazy way of bidding and irresponsible way to run a business. He fostered in the minds of builders that photography is some sort of mindless, cookie cutter process that is churned out like piece work. He was constantly contacting (one of my clients called it harrassing) every business he could find. After several years he dried up and went away, but during all that tme and several years after, he made making an honest living almost impossible.
Since I use it to make my living, that stuff is not important.
FWIW, I don't usually do action, so the focus speed is rather unimportant. I'm used to carrying around much heavier equipment, so weight is not a problem. Of course, flash sync speed can have genuine benefits when filling in daylight, so that could be a factor. I don't know what the sync speed of the different models is. I am usually using non dedicated strobes, so it has to be fast with any type of strobe, not just the dedicated ones.
doing trade with models is a very common practice, especialy when starting out. Both of you are trying to get a foothold and there isn't usually much money to go around. Plus, you both benefit. What I was talking about is more the practice of always undercutting or doing price based work. Of course, being in New York, there is a completely different atmosphere than where I am. Here, one photographer with bad practices can cause serious problems for almost everyone.
For example, there was a wedding photographer here a few years back who charged outrageous prices, really touted himself as the greatest thing since sliced bread and convinced a lot of people. Problem is, he was completely incompetent. One result was that someone who hired him to shoot her daughter's wedding commented that this was proof it isn't worth it to hire a professional photographer. He caused serious problems for all wedding photographers for years. He eventually fled the country since he apparently didn't pay his taxes, or something to that effect. Even though I am a commercial photographer, he even had a negative effect on my business.
Another, much closer competitor had fixed rates for his architectural work, which is one of my major areas. He charged $75 per shot if he didn't use additional lighting and $125 if he did. He then left it up to the client as to what type of lighting they wanted. This is not only incompetent, but relies on the client making decisions the photographer is hired to make himself. Once again, bad results, like potential clients calling up and asking how much I charge per shot. My temptation was to ask them how much they charge to build a house, but of course I can't say that. No matter how absurd (not to mention too cheap) his pricing scheme was, it was easy and basically a lazy way of bidding and irresponsible way to run a business. He fostered in the minds of builders that photography is some sort of mindless, cookie cutter process that is churned out like piece work. He was constantly contacting (one of my clients called it harrassing) every business he could find. After several years he dried up and went away, but during all that tme and several years after, he made making an honest living almost impossible.
Since I use it to make my living, that stuff is not important.
FWIW, I don't usually do action, so the focus speed is rather unimportant. I'm used to carrying around much heavier equipment, so weight is not a problem. Of course, flash sync speed can have genuine benefits when filling in daylight, so that could be a factor. I don't know what the sync speed of the different models is. I am usually using non dedicated strobes, so it has to be fast with any type of strobe, not just the dedicated ones.
BTW, Steve,
The claim to fame for the S3 is supposed to be its ability to maintain detail in the extremes of the range, particularly whites. That's not a sexy aspect of image quality which can be touted very well is stats, so it is likely only going to be important to those who work for a living.
BTW, if you guys get the feeling I think virtually any photographer who spends his time competing over equipment in online forums is just a poser, you are right. I've just been an HTF member for several years and I occasionally drop by this section.
The claim to fame for the S3 is supposed to be its ability to maintain detail in the extremes of the range, particularly whites. That's not a sexy aspect of image quality which can be touted very well is stats, so it is likely only going to be important to those who work for a living.
BTW, if you guys get the feeling I think virtually any photographer who spends his time competing over equipment in online forums is just a poser, you are right. I've just been an HTF member for several years and I occasionally drop by this section.
Steve Ridges
Stunt Coordinator
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2000
- Messages
- 180
John, I'm aware of the dynamic range claims by Fuji for the S3. Thats why I'm so put off by people on the various forums. They seem to take one look at the N80 based body and feature list and dismiss it as being $1000 over priced when its main claim to fame is the dynamic range which can't be judged becuase no one has a production camera yet.
That's the funny thing, Steve. The S1 I use is based on an N50, if I remember right. It has program, auto, aperture priority, shutter priority and manual. It doesn't have a depth preview, but so what, it's freaking digital. Look at an actual shot rather than trying to see the depth. When my other systems are Bronica and Cambo with no meters, no nothing, it is hard for me to understand why anyone who has any idea what they are doing thinks they need an F5 to feel good about themselves. If the S3 actually does end up creating some sort of toe and shoulder in the image, that will be a major breakthrough.
Creativity doesn't come on a freaking microchip. Anything to avoid the actual result, I guess.
Creativity doesn't come on a freaking microchip. Anything to avoid the actual result, I guess.
You know. If you think about it, this already is happening, and WebMD.com is pushing us one big step further down that direction. And of course, the web does also make promoting holistic medicine and all that other non-standard stuff all that much easier -- not to mention all the TV infomercials.
And RE: the S3 complaints, I haven't followed closely, but I imagine it's at least partly from all the folks who buy DSLRs to shoot sports, whether professionally or just as a hobby. OTOH, I can also see (but not agree w/) the hobbyist father complaining too even though all he shoots are his kids and/or pets and maybe dabble a little bit w/ paid portrait work. Hmmm... That's beginning to sound like me, except there's no way I'm doling out $3-5K for a flagship pro body and then constantly trade for a different one every few months, including the glass collection too(!).
_Man_
BTW, what are the quirks of the Fujis you mention?
John,
I don't know too well about all the quirks w/ the S2 since it was simply too far out of my budget to consider seriously. But I hear that the battery thing is one of them -- it needs 2 separate batteries, but I forget why. People also seem to complain that the S2 is generally more clunky for ergonomics and handling than the competition -- it's based on same Nikon film body as the D100, but apparently, ergonomics and handling do differ significantly. And of course, there are the features/specs you mentioned that I guess many such people consider as "quirks". Usually, I'd expect all this kind of stuff to bother PJ-types, but as I mentioned, there apparently are PJ-types that use the S2 nonetheless although probably none for shooting sports.
From the sound of it, probably none of the quirks of the S2 will bother you much (if at all) or keep you from getting your shot. Around these forums, it does seem that people often lose sight of the principles of "right tool for right job" and "photog matters most" in such debates.
OTOH, I wouldn't really dismiss some of the technical stuff that gets bantered about either, especially the handling of DR in digital. People have found good ways to deal w/ the limited DR for many situations although it does take some PS skills to do. The fundamental idea of blending multiple exposures for DR is certainly nothing new to photography, but software solutions do make it much easier to do in digital than in the film darkroom -- well, at least that's what I'm told. And of course, since you have an S1, I'm sure you're well aware of these things already.
Still, there are certainly folks who are sticking w/ film so far when DR and absolute resolution (and maybe lack of digital artifacts) matters most -- and there isn't any noise/grain paranoia. I won't point to Ken Rockwell as a good example since I'm actually not quite that impressed by his work, but Ed Ley has a strong presence as a film shooter -- who scans his negs for digital uses -- over in dpreview.com even though he doesn't post much. Check out some of his inspiring film work (to me as a landscape illiterate anyway) from Southern Cal over here:
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
I'm familiar w/ Ed through a handful of correspondences in the Samples & Galleries forum on dpreview.com and he is definitely different from most posters over there. And despite that, he still garners some sort of following over there.
Incidentally, I believe Ed would've probably gone w/ the S2 himself if he felt it was good enough to rival good film. I believe he shoots w/ Nikon film gear and would have existing glass for the S2 although maybe the crop factor was a bigger issue for him than the other issues. That's certainly something to remember for landscape photography. And probably, the Canon 1Ds was completely out of the question for him both for the body cost as well as glass costs (for switching systems).
BTW, although Ed is Californian and sticks to film so far, he apparently is net pals w/ Dirk Vermierre (whom I mentioned earlier) and gets mentioned by the cozy little Belgian 2.8 group website run by Dirk. In fact, Martin Crespo also gets mentioned there also -- and all 4 members of 2.8 are S2 shooters although Jacques recently passed away.
http://www.2point8.be/
_Man_
I don't know too well about all the quirks w/ the S2 since it was simply too far out of my budget to consider seriously. But I hear that the battery thing is one of them -- it needs 2 separate batteries, but I forget why. People also seem to complain that the S2 is generally more clunky for ergonomics and handling than the competition -- it's based on same Nikon film body as the D100, but apparently, ergonomics and handling do differ significantly. And of course, there are the features/specs you mentioned that I guess many such people consider as "quirks". Usually, I'd expect all this kind of stuff to bother PJ-types, but as I mentioned, there apparently are PJ-types that use the S2 nonetheless although probably none for shooting sports.
From the sound of it, probably none of the quirks of the S2 will bother you much (if at all) or keep you from getting your shot. Around these forums, it does seem that people often lose sight of the principles of "right tool for right job" and "photog matters most" in such debates.
OTOH, I wouldn't really dismiss some of the technical stuff that gets bantered about either, especially the handling of DR in digital. People have found good ways to deal w/ the limited DR for many situations although it does take some PS skills to do. The fundamental idea of blending multiple exposures for DR is certainly nothing new to photography, but software solutions do make it much easier to do in digital than in the film darkroom -- well, at least that's what I'm told. And of course, since you have an S1, I'm sure you're well aware of these things already.
Still, there are certainly folks who are sticking w/ film so far when DR and absolute resolution (and maybe lack of digital artifacts) matters most -- and there isn't any noise/grain paranoia. I won't point to Ken Rockwell as a good example since I'm actually not quite that impressed by his work, but Ed Ley has a strong presence as a film shooter -- who scans his negs for digital uses -- over in dpreview.com even though he doesn't post much. Check out some of his inspiring film work (to me as a landscape illiterate anyway) from Southern Cal over here:
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
I'm familiar w/ Ed through a handful of correspondences in the Samples & Galleries forum on dpreview.com and he is definitely different from most posters over there. And despite that, he still garners some sort of following over there.
Incidentally, I believe Ed would've probably gone w/ the S2 himself if he felt it was good enough to rival good film. I believe he shoots w/ Nikon film gear and would have existing glass for the S2 although maybe the crop factor was a bigger issue for him than the other issues. That's certainly something to remember for landscape photography. And probably, the Canon 1Ds was completely out of the question for him both for the body cost as well as glass costs (for switching systems).
BTW, although Ed is Californian and sticks to film so far, he apparently is net pals w/ Dirk Vermierre (whom I mentioned earlier) and gets mentioned by the cozy little Belgian 2.8 group website run by Dirk. In fact, Martin Crespo also gets mentioned there also -- and all 4 members of 2.8 are S2 shooters although Jacques recently passed away.
http://www.2point8.be/
_Man_
Well,
the whole thing of whether digital or film is better, I expect you know, is rather absurd. I know you weren't actually pointing that direction in your post, but it sure seems a lot of people think that way. I still use a split. It amkes no sense to me if someone is paying for a couple hours to set up an architectural shot to shoot it on digital.
What the digital has done for me is pretty much replace 35mm. I still shoot medium and large format film and scan them. It is possible to get meaningful resolution on a good 120 film and lens up to about 3,000 dpi, which results in nearly a 200 MB file on a 6x9 shot. Plenty for any situation. You can't extract as much out of 4x5 due to thicker base and generally lower quality optics, but you have roughly 4 times the film area.
the whole thing of whether digital or film is better, I expect you know, is rather absurd. I know you weren't actually pointing that direction in your post, but it sure seems a lot of people think that way. I still use a split. It amkes no sense to me if someone is paying for a couple hours to set up an architectural shot to shoot it on digital.
What the digital has done for me is pretty much replace 35mm. I still shoot medium and large format film and scan them. It is possible to get meaningful resolution on a good 120 film and lens up to about 3,000 dpi, which results in nearly a 200 MB file on a 6x9 shot. Plenty for any situation. You can't extract as much out of 4x5 due to thicker base and generally lower quality optics, but you have roughly 4 times the film area.
Rob Gillespie
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 1998
- Messages
- 3,632
OK guys, a few snaps here from a complete hack, on a Canon G5 at full res downsamepled to 1024x768 purely for ease of browsing. Considering I haven't got a clue what I'm doing I think some look half decent.
Two out of thirty-odd shots I took as the sunset was hitting the roof of my porch last weekend, just as a rainstorm was ending. I'm going to take four or five and frame them together in an 'ikea' type of display.
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/roof01.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/roof02.jpg
Last weekend I did an acrobatic flight in a Jet Provost which was amazing. I acted as the unofficial snapper for the day and here's a few examples. I wanted to get candid shots of the other people in the group and some of them came out OK. The G5 isn't really quick enough for this kind of task though, but the people themselves were very happy with the pics. The last one is me in full Top Gun mode
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/jet00.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/jet01.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/jet02.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/jet03.jpg
This is the real Bletchley Park (the film Enimga was shot at another location), which I visited last month. I took over a hundred shots that day and most came out so-so. This one is OK I suppose but it's the best one I got of the actual house.
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/...tchleypark.jpg
I've been down in the Forest Of Dean this weekend and took many pictures. I'm actually disappointed with most of them and am kicking myself for not learning more about how the G5 works before leaving, but one or two are OK.
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/woods01.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/woods02.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/woods03.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/woods04.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/woods05.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/woods06.jpg
Any advice would be welcome (not including "keep your day job" LOL).
Two out of thirty-odd shots I took as the sunset was hitting the roof of my porch last weekend, just as a rainstorm was ending. I'm going to take four or five and frame them together in an 'ikea' type of display.
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/roof01.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/roof02.jpg
Last weekend I did an acrobatic flight in a Jet Provost which was amazing. I acted as the unofficial snapper for the day and here's a few examples. I wanted to get candid shots of the other people in the group and some of them came out OK. The G5 isn't really quick enough for this kind of task though, but the people themselves were very happy with the pics. The last one is me in full Top Gun mode
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/jet00.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/jet01.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/jet02.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/jet03.jpg
This is the real Bletchley Park (the film Enimga was shot at another location), which I visited last month. I took over a hundred shots that day and most came out so-so. This one is OK I suppose but it's the best one I got of the actual house.
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/...tchleypark.jpg
I've been down in the Forest Of Dean this weekend and took many pictures. I'm actually disappointed with most of them and am kicking myself for not learning more about how the G5 works before leaving, but one or two are OK.
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/woods01.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/woods02.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/woods03.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/woods04.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/woods05.jpg
http://www.robsternet.plus.com/pics/misc/woods06.jpg
Any advice would be welcome (not including "keep your day job" LOL).
Users who are viewing this thread
Sign up for our newsletter
and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more
Members online
- Greg Krewet
- Timothy E
- Andrew Budgell
- Doug Wallen
- JohnHopper
- Mark Mayes
- Osato
- Ernest
- SD_Brian
- Jonathan Perregaux
- Henry Gondorff
- Al.Anderson
- Robert_Zohn
- jsmiller60
- sbjork
- Joe Wong
- Blimpoy06
- cinefan
- Lee Smith
- Neil S. Bulk
- Dan McW
- MikeDE
- lj01
- davidarob
- jkholm
- bujaki
- EdG
- Keith Cobby
- Jimbo.B
- xx Brian xx
- JoshZ
- DannyLewis
- TheSteig
- Koro
- BobO'Link
- tvwesternslover
- Jack P
- jayembee
- Rob W
- Nelson Au
- ABaglivi