AVS Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,838 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'd like to show those without actual experience a little sample of what kind of special attributes the multi-component mixture known as Black Flame Colorant has in it's favor.

Many times people have asked; "Can't I just color-match the colorant?" or even; "Can't I just use any neutral Grey to shade Silver Fire?"

Bluntly put.....no. :cool:

As is also the case concerning the diluted and blended composition of the Reflective / Viscosity Mix, the Colorant mix is designed using specific Acrylic Tints that are diluted so that the individual particals remain....well, individual.:D

Digital projection consists of distinctly separate frequencies of light. Some are decidedly more intense than others. Certainly there are noticeable differences in reflectivity among them. All have specific properties that determine how light will reflect.

One special attribute of Silver Fire is that it can and does maintain a level of reflective gain that is disproportionately higher in relation to the degree of attenuation that the darkness of a given Grey shade would normally present. When combined with a balance obtained via the overt reflective properties of the basic Silver Fire mix, the end result is a deeply translucent, reflective surface that diffuses light, refracts a degree of the incoming light into the surface to increase viewing cone despite achieved gain, and deepens Black Levels to a degree that is greater than any resulting attenuation of the lighter spectrum s of reflective light.

That makes the whole concept something quite remarkable.....a statement proven out for some time now.

But still, most do not realize the overall importance that the Colorant plays in creating the various darker iterations of Silver Fire

With the newest formula, using the latest chosen "at large" Tints, a properly measured and mixed Colorant shows to be a very dark Brown color, much akin to a dirty Motor Oil. This is because light passing into the colorant mixture is being reflected by all the individual tint particles, but even diluted as they are, they exist in a state that crowds them much closer together. So the various shades of reflected light combine to produce a decidedly Brown color.

Anyone who ever mixed Water colors together knows how mixing RGBY together achieves a dark Brown....mess.



The above is the remains of what was a 448 oz batch of Black Flame Colorant.

Just below is the same Colorant with a very Intense bright Light directed upon it.


Under intense light the Colorant has a most definitely "Brown" in appearance....yes?



Yet once it is further diluted....as in the following "linked to" case by rinsing the Bucket out with water.....suddenly the color becomes a very dark, but Neutral Grey.


http://vidmg.photobucket.com/albums...olorant Dump Video_mpeg2video_zpsb7vv3b8y.mp4



.............leaving what can only be described as a Grey residue.








I often relate that what makes Silver Fire the special application it is is the balanced aspect that exists between the metallic content (...and what types are used....) , the viscosity elements, and the special Colorant interaction.

I'll be glad to entertain comments and questions, and hopefully see a few testimonials from other Members as to their own experiences when mixing and adding Colorant.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,752 Posts
Would you be able+willing to experiment on faking the colorant in a specific way?:

-Mix up a batch of colorant using the RGBY and water, but not any of the metallic/gold, then add 4oz of that RGBYwater colorant to 10oz of flat-white..mix thoroughly and apply several coats onto a test panel.

-Get a quart of interior flat tinted "deep onyx" and test-out how many ounces of that quart must be added into 10oz of flat-white in order to achieve the same shade as the test panel made with the colorant+white.

-If the amount required to match is less than 4oz, add water to the "matching" amount until it equals 4oz..for example, if 3oz of deeponyx plus 10oz of white matches the shade of colorant+white, then add 1oz of water for every 3oz of DeepOnyx in the future.

-Using the above example, mix:
10oz flat-white
16oz matte polycrylic
21oz pearl
21oz silver
24-36oz water
(For this example) 1.5oz DeepOnyx and 0.5oz water

And see how it compares/contrasts to a standard SilverFire/BF using the regular 2oz colorant procedure.

It'd be interesting to see how far it falls, and this seems like a better method than chasing color-matches or purely the colorant itself..this is how I'd go about it anyway.
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,838 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Compare the Tint formula for the Onyx to that of the Colorant. They are not remotely the same....not even close.

Adding Colorant to just white would eliminate the balancing between the specific formula for the Colorant, and how it reacts to the specific components in the Reflective mix.
Also, all "white paint" is not the same. Results could and would also vary.

What your asking is no different that other suggestions that a / any Grey should be able to duplicate what the Colorant does.

It cannot be ignored that such experimentation were considered and done literally years before, and that if such a simple process could yield the varying and adjustable results the the SF formula could, it would have been ludicrous to present and suggest any method that would unnecessarily complicate things.

While you and others are welcome to take the known method and tinker / experiment to attempt to discover if what you are suggesting might work, myself, I have no interest in either reinventing a already round wheel, nor working to disprove the validity of a already proven concept.

I sit back and watch people take old concepts, try tweaking them with newer ideas, and find that I can easily judge for myself the pros and cons of such efforts and where they fall within known and acceptable boundaries. Much of what has gone before and has been accomplished has motivated the thinking behind such efforts. That is usually how most "new" ideas are born. If the more complex method behind SF motivates people to try to do the same thing only simpler, the end results of such efforts can only do 1 of 3 things. Either move beyond SF....or fall short. Or reach a parity.

I of course have no issue with any of those scenarios, but as of yet I still see no particular application that has the versatility or flexibility offered by SF and it's completely adjustable formula.

BTW...I was hoping for comments on what is shown here and questions pertaining to such....not to start a round of experimentation to exclude or disprove the necessity of the use of the colorant itself. Just sayin' ;)
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,838 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
There have been several postings of such measurements....as well as direct comparisons, both by me and by independent, non-biased sources...but obviously you didn't see them. Any of them.

The application exists, and has existed for years, and has helped a great many achieve exactly what they needed, and more.

Be it subjective or non-subjective, there has been enough info & facts stated publicly that continual requests for repetitious re-issuance is not necessary Peer review can easily carry the day.

However, it would seem by the very nature of your post that your not really interested in such....only criticism.Yours was not a request, but rather an accusation.

Please post politely as to the topic of the thread or not at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,752 Posts
The difference between using "deeponyx" and what's been done before by you and others is twofold; it requires less paint instead of more (so adding water allows it to become a 1:1 substitute for colorant instead of a complicated re-invention of the wheel which requires all manner of formula changes), it doesn't have the normal blue-push of other blacks/greys/silvers.

You yourself have suggested the use of different flat-whites both in brand, viscosity and covering ability. I understand it makes a difference, but that's negated by simply sticking to what you've already used/preferred for white OR simply using the same white for the RGBYwater AND the matching DeepOnyx+water..so that really shouldn't be a problem.

This isn't about reinventing the wheel..the wheel is great for rolling certain things from point A to point B. It's more about the current way the wheel is made; chewing on a block of wood unit it's round enough to sand can create a fine wheel, but I'm suggesting the use of a saw. Same end result, cleaner/faster middle.

I realize your reluctance to do more testing in this direction, but the truth is that's the way it would HAVE to be. Even if I did this all myself already, even if I went around showing comparison after comparison showing it to be a perfect match and shouted it on the mountain top, it wouldn't mean anything.
It HAS to come from YOU.
You are the vocal element of your mix, only you can ultimately test, compare, and suggest any kind of alteration. Only you can make that addition to the first page on the official SF thread.

You've tried grey, it needed too much paint and added too much masking without enough darkening.
You tried black, it added a blue push.
Try DeepOnyx..then add water to make it a 1:1 substitute for the RGBYwater colorant.

I know it's a hard spot. If it fails, you're out a little time and money..if it succeeds, even though others and yourself get a simpler wheel building technique, it still seemingly traps you against all the previous tellings of the RGBY virtues. I understand how it might feel like it's letting the naysayers of decades past have some sort of victory, BUT it's not. DeepOnyx is a dense mix of RGBY pigments that requires additional water to thin the mix and allow those pigments some breathing room. It's the same concept as the original but it comes in a prepackaged form for yours and others' convenience.
You don't have to give up anything.
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,838 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Basically, it boils down to someone else asking another person to provide the answers they seek at the other's expense of time and effort. My time is not hobby time, it's a living, and as of now I'm pressed even at that level because of health issues. I cannot even risk driving myself around at present, such is my penchant for sudden dizziness and vertigo attacks.

Your attempting to goad me by stating that I'm supposedly afraid of showing the end results, that it will serve to disprove all my prior statements. To me that's essentially rubbish. I have always been on the side of the DIY'er and trying to minimize both expense and effort while not sacrificing the best possible results attainable.

For me it's a "If it ain't broke..." thing, and for those who are not intimidated by the bit of SF's extra effort, their posted results have always been above what I've seen produced so far with any basic Grey...even with metallic content added.

It's a great thing that you and others aspire to come up with methods that hope to simplify things. It's all been done before, mind you...and for some the end results were perfectly acceptable. My own experience as well as hundreds of other's has shown that the differences that exist between such simpler methods and SF are to be considered desirable.

If you or anyone else want to prove otherwise, or attempt to knock SF down a peg or 2, it's something that must exist within your domain and interest. But don't even think I have not tried other paint solutions. While DeepOnyx is not one of them, when cut with a White it cannot be so dissimilar to other Dark Neutral Greys that I have used...some with metallic content...that it itself can make a difference. It can only provide close to, if not exactly the same results. Also, DeepOnyx consists of Tints added to a very disproportionate amount of Deep Base. It's tints are blended....but they are not diluted with water "before" blending into the Deep Base. If you were to try doing the same thing that the Colorant does...without the DeepOnyx tints first being blended into all that Deep Base, you would never achieve what you have.

Therein lies the difference, something you seem unable or unwilling to consider or grasp.

But because this thread is about discussion of the Colorant (...not trying to supplant it...) I go forward with this.

You could go to the trouble of computing the actual ml. measurements of the DeepOnyx tints needed to have a pure amount of such in your hands....then you could dilute them with an equal amount of distilled water.(...that is a somewhat different route than you suggested, but in truth the oly really correct way to reach any conclusion...) After that....add whatever proportions you think "might" work to a mixture of the metallic paints you prefer as well as to whatever quantity/type of White and then see what happens.

The first thing to note would be what the Tint / water mix looks like. While it may contain some variation of RGBY (...and I don't think you actually know if it does contain all of them in each of their purest forms....) it most certainly does not have the same ratios.

Then there is the interaction between the Tinted mix and the chosen metallic base. To that extent I'm more interested in the non-tinted metallic RL you've used. Used accordingly, it simply adds mica to what is essentially a very dark Grey (almost black) tinted base. That would mean everything depends upon the how neutral the resulting mix is.

In all the descriptions of your own application's performance, I've seen little or no mention of exactly how correct all the Colors are. There have been no tests run or offered. What you yourself see and determine acceptable might not fall in line with what a majority might expect...and although I'm sure the difference is small, to some that difference means everything.

The same thing applies to the level of White attenuation, and a few other things. Those aspects of IQ have all been taken into account using SF with and without Colorant, as well as with RS-MM LL, and neutrality along with as little white attenuation as can be prevented has always been of paramount importance.

So you see, it is not conducive to anything relevant to what I do or what I recommend to others for me to go to the trouble to experiemnt with your application. And it would seem it's not very high on your list of things to do for you to do likewise...even though I offered to send you some paint / colorant samples, to which you declined for personal reasons.

Lastly...and I would think you would understand this point, for some, if I was to do any such experimentation to make a direct comparison between something else supposedly to be a better "mousetrap" as opposed to the SF application, something that goes beyond simple Greys and Matte Whites examples, and posted that I found it wanting, or wholly unacceptable, how much credence would be given to such a posting by those more inclined to believe I would have no interest or reason to post otherwise?

That very reason is why although I do often post my "opinions" based on "my" actual and varied experience, and post up very telling images of a variety of applications in a variety of situations, I always depend upon and rely upon the posted results that others have obtained to validate the worthiness of what I recommend. While I often paint a target on my back by posting almost anything (...this Thread notwithstanding...), only the most crass individuals try to call out the other Rank & File Members who post about their own results, be they subjective or otherwise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,752 Posts
Fair enough. ..and no goading intended that time, think of it more as open asking/begging.
I was saying you could easily claim either method to work in a similar enough way so that even a successful match wouldn't technically be disproving the earlier work..just streamlining the path toward the same end result.
And saying the final grade needs to be given by you in order to have much/any value for future SF users. If someone with spaying skills and an existing SF screen is able and willing to do that prior legwork and then somehow send the results to you for final approval/dismissal, that'd work too..I just don't see it happening any more likely.
I didn't mean to rush you through anything. I know you're busy.
I only wanted to put that request out there for when/if you find time and inclination to trudge through it.

I've never seen you post spectrometer results or measured lumen results, and you've always stated that you do things by eye.
I've somewhat similarly only compared the screens I've made by eye (though direct side-by-side) a known matte white/grey surfaces for neutrality and gain comparison. I've posted a few side-by-side pictures of screens next to matte-white in a dark room (most notably the pure metallic black that looked to use gold flakes), but that's about it as far as "proof" of any semblance of neutrality (flimsy at best)..so a small correction to what you said, but I'm likewise guilty of mostly eyeballing things (followed by a simple comparison measuring at the end).

If I'm wrong and you do have some posted non-eyeball measurements, I'd be just as eager to read through as the poster above. Again, not meaning a goad, just love reading the stuff if it's easy enough to acxess..I don't personally believe you or anyone would be able to prove the colorant is working differently for gainVSshade through measurement via tools either way, but I still love pretty charts.

I doubt anyone could tell what exact pigment tints and amounts are used in the acrylic artist tubes, so that's always a fun unknown.
I think the colorant works as you've explained by squeezing the maximum amount of darkening with the least amount of opacity. It darkens the screen's shade while not overtly masking the metallic required for positive gain. I also know that this same property is possible in most paints that avoid the particularly opaque white and covering pigments (most/any especially dark or deep tones are much more translucent) while using an equally concentrated amount of dark pigment to affect the overall screen shade.

I'll try to not harp on this more here and really didn't mean for this follow-up to be so long..I might shorten/delete it since it's furthering a bit that was not the sort of response you were originally looking for.
Just figured it'd be good to theorize in the thread dedicated specifically to the colorant about possible alternatives.

I will have to get off my butt and at least try the initial part of that experiment. ..even though I can't spray and can't give any final say, I can still see if DeepOnyx is useable in the required equal or smaller amount compared to the RGBYwater for darkening an equal white..if it requires a larger amount, well that's a hard stop right there because any further use would then require the exact same complicated reworking that was trying to be avoided. :)
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,838 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Thank you for the measured & courteous response.

While I myself have done none of the aforementioned measurements, other members have, and have posted them in various Threads, some of mine and their own. I have not tried to create a listing of links...perhaps I'm remiss for not doing so. But essentially once I see them up, I feel they are already sufficient.

But'cha know....it does seem a bit strange how none of the naysayers come crawling out of the woodwork when such things are posted....and as such they seem to fade back into the Thread postings. It seems that only when I make statements alluding to such I get a pummeling from some disaffected member. :D

So yeah....perhaps a listed link on my Sig. would be a good "warder-offer".

I do believe such figures are buried in the SF threads...and if by chance one of the faithful can point to the tests done on there or elsewhere, much gratitude would be afforded their effort.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,752 Posts
No problem. I know you're busy and injury restrictions (that I keep forgetting) aren't helping.
If you find the time later for a final grade/comparison, some impatient ants in the pants aren't going to hurt me. If you never feel like further testing in this direction, I'll whine, but live...while whining.

3rd party measurement is great!
I've only seen SF measurements from the HTS crew (both there and here)..are you saying there have been others that did similar (though possibly less controversial) measurement?
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,838 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
No problem. I know you're busy and injury restrictions (that I keep forgetting) aren't helping.
If you find the time later for a final grade/comparison, some impatient ants in the pants aren't going to hurt me. If you never feel like further testing in this direction, I'll whine, but live...while whining.

3rd party measurement is great!
I've only seen SF measurements from the HTS crew (both there and here)..are you saying there have been others that did similar (though possibly less controversial) measurement?
Yes. and golly gee, wouldn't you know it but the results differed wildly from those taken by people whose agenda is singularly that of promoting both their own Forum and underwhelming applications. Go figure.

But lest us not get all that rigamroe started up again.

The last round of very precisely done measurement using all the same methods employed elsewhere happened about 6-7 month ago if I have my time table right. I'm hoping someone with a better recollection of when / where those facts exist can pipe in.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,305 Posts
Don't get personal, fellas, or you will be removed from the thread. Keep it cordial.

K
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,838 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
In the past, it was perfectly acceptable for others to take the observed determinations by others from such comparisons as being definitive, and it was really only when some wanted to push the need for a screen to be absolutely neutral to be considered worthy that it became a supposed "standard" that such measurements using equipment that regular DIY'ers did not posses or need had to be pro-offered....or else. In fact, some used it as a "demanded" expectation, a virtual club to beat down anyone who did not have such gear, or was not willing to spend to acquire it.

But the truth has always been that such measurements are not the end all to determine the performance of a screen in real world experience. If fact, it has been shown that such "absolutes" as far as neutrality can be counterproductive for all but the most ideally suited viewing situations.

Also, there exists a double standard in the consideration of screen shots being worthwhile depictions of what someone actually sees before them. Let the screenie be posted by someone with a 3000.00+ PJ on a Stewart ST130 on a "Screen shot" dedicated Threadand you better not dare call it untrustworthy. Use a DIY screen with a sub $2000.00 PJ and show a great image in a Photo, and suddenly nothing good can be said.

Over the years I have done many very extensive comparison Threads showing as many as 6-7 different painted solutions against a Reference white...where the differences were there to plainly see. and those differences were captured using Cameras ranging from Pocket Digi-Cams to Analog and Digital SLRs Same responses from both sides.

  • Wow...I can really see the differences!
  • I'm callin' BS. No way the camera can capture the differences.
While I might deign to take the time to dredge them all up and re-post them / link to them, I don't respond well to overt and insulting demands for doing so from people who probably haven't really tried to go through my threads themselves....just like I would have to do. And basically, even if / when I do so...and I have done so before, all it accomplishes as far as satisfying the demands made is to give the people doing the demanding more Forum space to post more of their same commentary. A vicious circle indeed, but one they love to propagate.

It easily comes down to the difference between what some want to believe and accept, and what some want to discredit and deny. And a greater truth being that it's always those who express the most vehemently that some kind of shady business is afoot, or that someone is trying to intentionally mislead people...those people never even want to consider getting off their rears and actually doing something to prove their beliefs to themselves. Such is the nature of how some people act when disguised by the anonymity of a Avatar.

I've said this repeatedly before. I let the accomplishments of others determine the validity of the applications I advocate. I let the finished product as represented by the Member determine if the advice and help I offer was worth their time and effort.

If I had a vested interest in selling on the Forum, I'd have a Banner Ad up and I have no doubt I would get plenty of traffic. But I do not have such, and claims that I'm "marketing" are just attempts to foster off a personal opinion....not a indication of reality. Some day I might just do exactly that, but if I did it would be by following the dictates and rules of this Forum...not on the sly. I support this Forum...I do not use it to take advantage of beyond garning the satisfaction I get fr4om helping others.

All that said, I think it would be great if somehow we could have some people be so pro-active as to work together to assemble a broad cross section of DIY applications. I myself can only do so much along such lines (...far less than I could 10 years ago....) yet it seems an easy thing for others to expect me to do it all out of hand and out of pocket.

I have gone so far as to ask around about such a project. So far to no result.

Certainly, those who chose to buy iPros and CalMan software because of their own personal usage reasons can easily say "Why not you?". And if I reply, "Hey....I have never needed such to determine the correctness of a given application." then of course the knives come out and comments (ie: insults) stating that, "it's "impossible" to do so....your either lying or intentionally misleading people". start being tossed around. But....usually by only 1 or 2 people who fit the criteria previously mentioned. They have done nothing...tried nothing...and don't intend to do anything in the DIY realm to attempt to prove what they purport to be true. They are simply just trying to be disruptive and insulting.

The double standard I personally live with...that others can talk up any application they advocate to a point of redundancy without fear of repudiation, whereas If I post I attract some few people every once in a while who want to toss tomatoes at everything I've done on the Forum........well hey, I have lived with that for years now.

But my own track record with all the people I have helped, and the sheer lack of postings alluding to what I advocate as being false and misleading plainly dismisses the few postings where people act out their rudeness and nastiness, and condemn such as being just that....nastiness for the sake of nastiness.

That's the Forum reality we / I must deal with. Thank goodness there are better checks and balances existing these days on this Forum to keep such things under control.
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,838 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I'm interested in test formulas. Missisipiman where can compare you formula with the others. ? Pictures or videos ?

Thanks Mississipiman
It has been some while since there was any actual "Shoot-Out" between various applications. Usually, that take someone with one particular full size application who can the host reasonably sized examples sent by others who wish to participate.

Also, some degree of criteria for judgement is made, be it with 2 or more unbiased individuals who make empirical determinations, along with someone who can provide so actual measurements.



Post a new Thread asking for such and I will try my best to find some content to link to.

But be advised that as far as some of the most recent ideas and applications on here that not much has be done or ventured to make such comparisons a reality.
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,838 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I would still like to field questions and comments about this Thread's specific subject (...and that only, please...)

those who have mixed their own batches of Colorant, you should have something to offer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,207 Posts
Have you thought about switching the colorant mix over to a CMY color space mix using the colors Cyan, Magenta and Yellow? Those three colors mixed in equal parts create a perfect black, then all one would have to do to achieve the level of grey wanted would be to cut it with a RGB value 255:255:255 white base paint.

Also, what would be your thoughts about changing over to printing inks for the colorant component? This would have a plus to it by becoming a viscosity reducer by thinning out the paint while having to use less of it.

EDIT: If you stuck with the RGBY mix in inks it would be watery thin, just add enough white base to achieve the required spraying viscosity and you would have a highly concentrated color mix. I didn't do the math but there is a possibility that there would be enough colorant in a 1 quart mix that can equal or exceed what is in a 1 gallon mix. Concentrated indeed!...lol
 

·
DIY Granddad (w/help)
Joined
·
24,838 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Have you thought about switching the colorant mix over to a CMY color space mix using the colors Cyan, Magenta and Yellow? Those three colors mixed in equal parts create a perfect black, then all one would have to do to achieve the level of grey wanted would be to cut it with a RGB value 255:255:255 white base paint.

Also, what would be your thoughts about changing over to printing inks for the colorant component? This would have a plus to it by becoming a viscosity reducer by thinning out the paint while having to use less of it.

EDIT: If you stuck with the RGBY mix in inks it would be watery thin, just add enough white base to achieve the required spraying viscosity and you would have a highly concentrated color mix. I didn't do the math but there is a possibility that there would be enough colorant in a 1 quart mix that can equal or exceed what is in a 1 gallon mix. Concentrated indeed!...lol
Both of the above were explored, with Inks being among the first.

Such Inks and Acrylic Paints do not mix well, and will separate very quickly.

As for equal amounts of and Tint, while it is true that in and of themselves they can create a "perfect" tint, such "equality" does not "measure up" as far as what happens when such a blend is mixed into the other components comprising a advanced mix. No...it was quickly found that a effective balance between the amounts of specific tints was needed to offset the already inherent colors present.

And lest that seemingly point a finger in the direction of using only Metallic particles mixed in a Clear base, one must also accommodate the fact that coated MICA (Silver or Pearl) or Aluminum (itself) all have distinct colorization that must be taken into account.

Simply taking a pure Black (...which virtually always pushes "Blue"...) and mixing it into a pure White will only provide a representative shade of Grey. Basic Grey screens abound...and their qualities and caveats are well known. It takes a wholly different approach to create different, more effective results...and after much effort, that is what was accomplished. Would that it have been as easy as all that many feel it should be...how the DIY landscape would differ today. Everything "DIY Screen" related would have long ago be considered to be "a done deal".
(...not that some have not tried their best to advocate such as being so... :rolleyes: )

But that's all good really, because the effort to find various solutions continues relatively unabated. That's best for variety and choice, as well as determining how well somethings work as opposed to others. And besides all that, those who conjure up old methods and re-badge them as "new" help bring previous efforts back into the limelight...be that for good-bad-indifferent reasons /results.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top