Comic Talk, Tips and Tricks

Buying a Tablet means Buying Skill?
DOUK at 9:41AM, Feb. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 82
joined: 12-12-2008
First of all, the title of this thread is not my opinion. It's the general consensus I experience in my life when people prefer art done by a tablet, or done on the latest Photoshop. I can't say for myself whether tablets improve/make no difference/lower art quality, because I've never used one.

But lately I was shown a picture by my friend, the picture was of a person playing a Video Game (xbox to be exact.) in a messy room. The detail was insane! I complimented him on how he got the fingers to go naturally on the controller, because we all know how hard that is to draw. Overall it was a good picture. He thought about getting it reviewed at someplace I don't know.

Here's the important bit: He told me he got a lower ‘rating’ than someone else's picture because that other person put a lot of emphasis on “I used a tablet, Photoshop CS, and all the other high quality art supplies!”. This made me think, when you buy high quality supplies, are you buying skill? Are you buying respect?

This should spark a discussion about whether or not its true, I for one think that its not what you have, its how you use it. But tablets sounds like they improve art for people used to using a pencil, and not a mouse.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:13PM
Senshuu at 10:16AM, Feb. 6, 2009
(offline)
posts: 391
joined: 5-23-2006
I have never heard anything like this, and whoever thinks like that is insane.

Tablets, Photoshop, they're just tools. Like crayons. Like markers. Like paint, and so on. And right now I have a ton more respect for people who can create amazing work the old-fashioned ways.

(Not saying I don't have respect for digital art, ‘cause I’m all over that stuff. Amazing what it allows you to do - but it's still just another tool, another medium.)

Who's so easily impressed that "I used !" causes them to rate up a picture?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:27PM
DOUK at 10:46AM, Feb. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 82
joined: 12-12-2008
Thats just the thing. I've seen it so much regularly that I thought everyone thought that. Now I know that its trivial to many people. And same for me, I have respect for people who can draw the Mona Lisa with a pen on lined paper :P
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:13PM
NickGuy at 11:46AM, Feb. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 988
joined: 2-22-2007
Ive never heard of anyone getting MORE cred for using digital tools. in fact, its usually the OTHER way around.

“Kung Fu Komix IS…hardcore martial art action all the way. 8/10” -Harkovast
“Kung Fu Komix is that rare comic that is made with heart and love of the medium, and it delivers” -Zenstrive
“Kung Fu Komix is…so awesome” -threeeyeswurm
“Kung Fu Komix is..told with all the stupid exuberance of the genre it parodies” -The Real Macabre
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:15PM
Skullbie at 4:23PM, Feb. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 4,709
joined: 12-9-2007
DOUK
lower ‘rating’ than someone else's picture because that other person put a lot of emphasis on “I used a tablet, Photoshop CS, and all the other high quality art supplies!”.
Your friend got a lower rating because his art wasn't as good, plain and simple. Tablets and photoshop don't get respect the obvious skill of the person does.

But at the same time a tablet is a very powerful tool, you have all the worlds brushes and exact eraser sizes in one pen- you also have transform tools, textures, patterns, and the infinite digital color pallets at your disposal.*dreamy sigh*
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:47PM
Hyena H_ll at 5:06PM, Feb. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,568
joined: 11-13-2008
NickGuy
Ive never heard of anyone getting MORE cred for using digital tools. in fact, its usually the OTHER way around.
I think that depends on who's giving the cred. ;)

Just out of curiosity: Where was this thing “rated” at? Who's doing the rating? It could be that the viewers preferred the other guy's style and subject matter over your friend's; or it could be that the other guy rallied all his buddies to go vote for him, or whatever; or it could be that they thought it was of a higher quality. I doubt it was because the other guy had fancier tools.



last edited on July 14, 2011 12:52PM
lba at 8:34AM, Feb. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,684
joined: 5-29-2007
Typically, the quality of your tools makes a difference in what you can produce, but nothing you make is instantly going to be better just because you used a better pen. Nicer tools make it a lot easier to get decent results and that's about it. Usually saying you've got something just means you're bragging.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:29PM
Ryuthehedgewolf at 10:49AM, Feb. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,340
joined: 9-2-2007
Personally, I do NOT find this to be true.
I work with decently cheap materials.

Pigma Brush Pens, a few microns, and sharpies, copy paper.
And I think I make it look good.

Skill is based on how much you draw, and how much you practice.

I've seen pros use Sharpies, and make it look good.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:16PM
Niccea at 12:51PM, Feb. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 5,514
joined: 8-10-2007
There is a piece of art work in my school that was done a long time ago in just three colors of ballpoint pen.

And like everyone said, it could just be a style thing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that stuff.

For instance, I know my work isn't the best around, but I'm still proud of it. I worked hard on it and that is all that matters. If I find art by someone else that is around the same style as mine, but better, I try to emulate their style and merge it with mine.

This has turned into a ramble as my posts often do, but I would be curious to see both these works.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:12PM
ozoneocean at 9:50PM, Feb. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Hahahaha, respect for the tools people use :)

I suppose that does happen, but those people are tools themselves. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
DrLuck at 10:00PM, Feb. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 134
joined: 1-4-2009
As said, it's not what it is, but how you use it. Having a tablet and PhotoShop doesn't mean your art is good. I actually have a tablet and the latest PhotoShop but I use primarily traditional means. I don't think my digital art is as good of a quality as my traditional, so I stick to that.

But yeah, I always hear people saying the other way around too.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
ozoneocean at 10:25PM, Feb. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Oh it's endless. You get morons going on about how using charcoal is more natural, and authentic than pencil… Or Oil painters who think acrylics are “safe” and easy to use. And how watercolours are only for old women and little kids lol!

It's endless. The only constant is that the people making those arguments are imbeciles who don't know what they're talking about.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
Niccea at 6:08AM, Feb. 8, 2009
(online)
posts: 5,514
joined: 8-10-2007
The odd pages of Mystery Bread (aka not my pages) are done in graphic pencils and merely cleaned up with words added in free knock off of Photoshop. And the quality kicks the even pages (aka my pages)which are entirely Photoshop/digital's (too cheap for tablet) butt.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:12PM
Aurora Borealis at 8:01AM, Feb. 8, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,289
joined: 3-2-2008
ozoneocean
Oh it's endless. You get morons going on about how using charcoal is more natural, and authentic than pencil… Or Oil painters who think acrylics are “safe” and easy to use. And how watercolours are only for old women and little kids lol!

It's endless. The only constant is that the people making those arguments are imbeciles who don't know what they're talking about.

I know a guy who claims that any art done traditionally is always better than art done digitally, cause digital art doesn't exist according to him. So, the fact that I color and “ink” digitally somehow disqualifies my drawings from being art. Doesn't matter that his sense of perspective and proportions is even worse than mine (he tries to claim it's on purpose). Oh yeah, also only pure media counts, meaning that if you use pencil, then you use pencil exclusively, shade everything extensively and also you should rag on comicbooky lineart for being “glorified stick figures”.

All of this somehow doesn't stop him from claiming that Spawn was the best comic ever, despite it being colored digitally from the first page.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:08AM
BlkKnight at 5:02PM, Feb. 8, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,101
joined: 5-28-2007
The quality of a tool is only as good as the quality of its user. It's really all it boils down to in the end.
That's “Dr. BlkKnight” to all of you.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:26AM
mattchee at 9:55AM, Feb. 10, 2009
(online)
posts: 347
joined: 1-18-2008
Aurora Borealis
I know a guy who claims that any art done traditionally is always better than art done digitally, cause digital art doesn't exist according to him. So, the fact that I color and “ink” digitally somehow disqualifies my drawings from being art.

That's BS. The end result is going to be a digital file either way (for web OR print), so why should it matter HOW you get there. I mean… where does it end? Can comics ONLY be inked with one specific brush or one specific brand of ink. The object is producing the best possible art, not using specific tools.

I think, for a lot of artists, when you grow up there's a lot of hocus pocus about art. People get this sort of ingrained idea that you have to magically have the ability to render whatever you please. Well, there's probably a handful of people like that, but the majority of folks learn, practice, and are constantly increasing their skills and discovering/using new and better techniques. There's nothing magic about it. You do what you do to get the results you want. If its digitally, swell, if its traditional, swell. But there's really no value of one over the other.

I think by now most folks here know I'm 100% digital, even though I work hard to keep a traditional look to my comics. My whole reason for going digital, its it saves me several steps, and a crapload of time getting my pages done. Does that make my work any less credible? I don't think so. If you were HIRING an artist would you pick the one that does better work, and does it on time. Once again the final output is a digital file, so it doesn't matter how it gets made, just that it DOES get made.

Aurora Borealis
All of this somehow doesn't stop him from claiming that Spawn was the best comic ever, despite it being colored digitally from the first page.

Maybe he considers it “black and white” hahahah

possibly even silent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:55PM
NickGuy at 1:36PM, Feb. 10, 2009
(online)
posts: 988
joined: 2-22-2007
Aurora Borealis
ozoneocean
Oh it's endless. You get morons going on about how using charcoal is more natural, and authentic than pencil… Or Oil painters who think acrylics are “safe” and easy to use. And how watercolours are only for old women and little kids lol!

It's endless. The only constant is that the people making those arguments are imbeciles who don't know what they're talking about.

I know a guy who claims that any art done traditionally is always better than art done digitally, cause digital art doesn't exist according to him. So, the fact that I color and “ink” digitally somehow disqualifies my drawings from being art. Doesn't matter that his sense of perspective and proportions is even worse than mine (he tries to claim it's on purpose). Oh yeah, also only pure media counts, meaning that if you use pencil, then you use pencil exclusively, shade everything extensively and also you should rag on comicbooky lineart for being “glorified stick figures”.

All of this somehow doesn't stop him from claiming that Spawn was the best comic ever, despite it being colored digitally from the first page.

and now its even INKED digitally!



“Kung Fu Komix IS…hardcore martial art action all the way. 8/10” -Harkovast
“Kung Fu Komix is that rare comic that is made with heart and love of the medium, and it delivers” -Zenstrive
“Kung Fu Komix is…so awesome” -threeeyeswurm
“Kung Fu Komix is..told with all the stupid exuberance of the genre it parodies” -The Real Macabre
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:15PM
mattchee at 1:51PM, Feb. 10, 2009
(online)
posts: 347
joined: 1-18-2008
Clearly, that drawing of Spawn does not exist.


last edited on July 14, 2011 1:55PM
NickGuy at 2:12PM, Feb. 10, 2009
(online)
posts: 988
joined: 2-22-2007
clearly. man, i wish i had a cintiq.

“Kung Fu Komix IS…hardcore martial art action all the way. 8/10” -Harkovast
“Kung Fu Komix is that rare comic that is made with heart and love of the medium, and it delivers” -Zenstrive
“Kung Fu Komix is…so awesome” -threeeyeswurm
“Kung Fu Komix is..told with all the stupid exuberance of the genre it parodies” -The Real Macabre
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:15PM
mattchee at 9:05PM, Feb. 10, 2009
(online)
posts: 347
joined: 1-18-2008
NickGuy
clearly. man, i wish i had a cintiq.

Incidentally… have you seen the one McFarlane uses? I saw a photo of him sitting at his cintiq (i dont even know if its part of that line, it was probably custom) it was HUGE. Like… a TABLE!

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:55PM
Hyena H_ll at 11:29AM, Feb. 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,568
joined: 11-13-2008
RE: Traditional v. Digital-
A lot of “traditional” artists, especially those who've had formal training (university or art school or whatever) are really intimidated by digital art. There's this paranoia that it's going to “replace” what they do. Usually these people have no experience or knowledge of digital art- in other words, they can't do it themselves. (Talk to darkroom photographers or traditional printmakers and they will literally foam at the mouth about it.) I'm not saying those fears aren't without some measure of validity, but some folks turn that fear into this disordered “my way is better!” frame of mind.

That said- it's not like digital art is going away. Saying because something doesn't exist because it's not in hard copy is ridiculous, and just a flat-out denial of the direction of contemporary image-making.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:52PM
NickGuy at 11:32AM, Feb. 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 988
joined: 2-22-2007
mattchee
NickGuy
clearly. man, i wish i had a cintiq.

Incidentally… have you seen the one McFarlane uses? I saw a photo of him sitting at his cintiq (i dont even know if its part of that line, it was probably custom) it was HUGE. Like… a TABLE!



well the dude did waste a bunch of millions on those home run baseballs, so im sure he can “convince” someone to make him a tablet that big.

“Kung Fu Komix IS…hardcore martial art action all the way. 8/10” -Harkovast
“Kung Fu Komix is that rare comic that is made with heart and love of the medium, and it delivers” -Zenstrive
“Kung Fu Komix is…so awesome” -threeeyeswurm
“Kung Fu Komix is..told with all the stupid exuberance of the genre it parodies” -The Real Macabre
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:15PM
lba at 12:18PM, Feb. 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,684
joined: 5-29-2007
Ryuthehedgewolf
Personally, I do NOT find this to be true.
I work with decently cheap materials.

Pigma Brush Pens, a few microns, and sharpies, copy paper.
And I think I make it look good.

Skill is based on how much you draw, and how much you practice.

I've seen pros use Sharpies, and make it look good.

It does make a difference. For instance, when I paint, I buy certain brands of spray paint because they have a higher/thicker pigment count, a greater variety of colours and greater coverage than the cheap $1 stuff from the hardware store. As a result I have to use less paint, get fewer drips, more vibrant pieces and have overall better work. Even at my skill level, it's incredibly hard to make that $1 can of crappy paint into a decent piece of work whereas the more expensive brands I prefer to use allow me to make good work with less chance of screw ups and a smaller amount of effort. The same will often apply to other mediums and purposes. It may not make you a better artist to have better materials, but it certainly makes things a bit easier.

Don't get me wrong, skill is more important, but the materials make a difference. You wouldn't try to copy the look of a brush with a pen just because the brush is more expensive to buy. Part of skill is knowing when to use the right materials for the job.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:29PM
Ryuthehedgewolf at 12:32PM, Feb. 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,340
joined: 9-2-2007
lba
Ryuthehedgewolf
Personally, I do NOT find this to be true.
I work with decently cheap materials.

Pigma Brush Pens, a few microns, and sharpies, copy paper.
And I think I make it look good.

Skill is based on how much you draw, and how much you practice.

I've seen pros use Sharpies, and make it look good.

It does make a difference. For instance, when I paint, I buy certain brands of spray paint because they have a higher/thicker pigment count, a greater variety of colours and greater coverage than the cheap $1 stuff from the hardware store. As a result I have to use less paint, get fewer drips, more vibrant pieces and have overall better work. Even at my skill level, it's incredibly hard to make that $1 can of crappy paint into a decent piece of work whereas the more expensive brands I prefer to use allow me to make good work with less chance of screw ups and a smaller amount of effort. The same will often apply to other mediums and purposes. It may not make you a better artist to have better materials, but it certainly makes things a bit easier.

Don't get me wrong, skill is more important, but the materials make a difference. You wouldn't try to copy the look of a brush with a pen just because the brush is more expensive to buy. Part of skill is knowing when to use the right materials for the job.

Oh, yeah. That's all true.
Hahah, I should've said that they both matter. But I think what I was trying to say was, that you don't need professional equipment to do professional art. But to be honest, it all depends on what kind of equipment we're talking about.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:16PM
confusedsoul at 3:14PM, Feb. 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 269
joined: 1-9-2006
Hyena H_ll
RE: Traditional v. Digital-
A lot of “traditional” artists, especially those who've had formal training (university or art school or whatever) are really intimidated by digital art. There's this paranoia that it's going to “replace” what they do. Usually these people have no experience or knowledge of digital art- in other words, they can't do it themselves. (Talk to darkroom photographers or traditional printmakers and they will literally foam at the mouth about it.) I'm not saying those fears aren't without some measure of validity, but some folks turn that fear into this disordered “my way is better!” frame of mind.

That said- it's not like digital art is going away. Saying because something doesn't exist because it's not in hard copy is ridiculous, and just a flat-out denial of the direction of contemporary image-making.

I'm on an art course currently and a lot of the students seem pretty savvy when it comes to using digital media, although primarily for photo editing it seems. I suppose it might be more of an age based thing, as most of the students aren't over 20.

The paranoia isn't entirely unfounded. In the world of media and advertising an artist who can produce art digitally can produce it faster, crisper and has the opportunity to recorrect any mistakes made in production more easily. Although you did already mention that(sorry).

I think digital art has already become accepted as the mainstream method of production. I doubt people will ever stop with a pencil, but traditional methods seem less cost effective for business.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:44AM
Hyena H_ll at 4:14PM, Feb. 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,568
joined: 11-13-2008
confusedsoul
I suppose it might be more of an age based thing, as most of the students aren't over 20.
It definitely is. My undergrad program didn't even have a computer lab until my senior year, and didn't have any professors that could teach a digital media class until after I left. I got exposed to it a little in grad school, but without going out of your way to learn it or taking extra courses, it's hard to “catch up”.
confusedsoul
The paranoia isn't entirely unfounded.
This overlaps into academia- it's almost impossible now to get hired on as a professor in any field- even sculpture- without knowing about this stuff. I should add that I'm one of those terrified Luddites that can't Photoshop her way out of a paper sack. At least I know where I stand, though, and ain't bitter about it. ;)


last edited on July 14, 2011 12:52PM
Zaidee at 5:08PM, Feb. 13, 2009
(offline)
posts: 9
joined: 9-28-2006
I think everyone here just said it all. It doesn't matter what type of tool you use. Its generally your skill that decided whether or not its a good piece, so to speech. And I guess the style you draw or paint in can also have a deciding point.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:54PM
Yunastari at 8:51PM, Feb. 15, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2
joined: 2-14-2009
For me I don't really give more respect for people who use more professional type stuff and make an amazing picture. I definitely have more respect for people who can make that can make a picture of the same amazing-ness from things that are cheaper and a lot less versatile.

For example, I have a friend whose parents discouraged her from doing art so she could not even attempt to save up for a program on her computer, so all she had to work with were the printer program and paint. Yet if you saw her work it absolutely floored you and it looked like it was for sure done in the current Photoshop.

I also have a bit more respect for Tradional media not because of the more work put into it, but just because there is no ‘undo’ button. Being a “digital kid” I've always had this undo button, and now that I'm just now learning a lot of things and doing projects for a tradional media class I find it very nervewracking and I put a lot more thought and time into it because one little mistake and depending on what you're doing it could be completely ruined, several hours meaning absolutely nothing. The same goes for photography in the fact that tradional photography you have no idea if your picture worked until you expose it in the dark room.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:53PM
ozoneocean at 12:22AM, Feb. 16, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Hyena H_ll
RE: Traditional v. Digital-
A lot of “traditional” artists, especially those who've had formal training (university or art school or whatever) are really intimidated by digital art. There's this paranoia that it's going to “replace” what they do. Usually these people have no experience or knowledge of digital art- in other words, they can't do it themselves. (Talk to darkroom photographers or traditional printmakers and they will literally foam at the mouth about it.) I'm not saying those fears aren't without some measure of validity, but some folks turn that fear into this disordered “my way is better!” frame of mind.

That said- it's not like digital art is going away. Saying because something doesn't exist because it's not in hard copy is ridiculous, and just a flat-out denial of the direction of contemporary image-making.
I experienced all that in various ways.

Me: totally classically, traditionally trained, all the way through school and into university.

In highschool I did all the art courses I could. Then did all the technical drawing/drafting- old style stuff with pencils, T-squares, protractors… Learning how to draw up accurate plans and understand perspective accurately mathematically, as well as how to turn a set of dimensions into a full shape in exploded perspective, all the way into a fully rendered inked up finished image. No computers in any part of that.

At art college and university I worked at painting in all sorts of media- not randomly either in a mixed way, but learning the properties of each type; watercolours, gauche, tempura, oils, acrylics. Drawing in all sorts, different types of printmaking (never did lithograph though). I spent a few years on sculpture trying different things in clay and wood mainly as well as steel constructions.

——————-
But after graduating, I went back and did a new course (then it was) in the drawing area… Where I did a bit of film work, darkroom photography and some video work, which we edited and worked on afterwards digitally in Photoshop and Adobe Premier.

And that opened new possibilities for me :)

After that in 2000 I was putting a lot of my stuff on the net and gradually realising the the work flow for art to go up on the net could be streamlined right down- Because most “traditional” analogue media DOES NOT translate well to digital. It took me a long time but I ended up making a full transition to digital because the net was where the work I was doing was meant for. -and it was a LOT cheaper since trying to produce work in the conventional way and get it to keep that quality when it went to digital involved me buying more expensive pigments (to get the right colour purity), better surfaces to work on (and a LOT of preparation work on those), better brushes… Even pencil work meant fussing with the right hardness leads, using lots of poisonous fixative, boards to keep pages flat, feathers to brush of rubbings and prevent smudging, plastic covers…

I went back later to do some post grad work in digital multimedia to enhance and expand my new skills, and loved it. In one of the courses the head of the photography area gave some lectures and he he was just SO quaintly old school and full of fear and prejudice about the newer media… his rationalisations about it were holding him back rather than helping him reach an understanding of it.

The mistake he and many other make is in looking at newer media techniques as competitors, imposters, and usurpers on the stuff that they know. But it's not. All digital media is simply another tool to use in traditional art practise, whatever that practice entails. - along with some new expanded abilities.

Yunastari
I also have a bit more respect for Tradional media not because of the more work put into it, but just because there is no ‘undo’ button. Being a “digital kid” I've always had this undo button, and now that I'm just now learning a lot of things and doing projects for a tradional media class I find it very nervewracking and I put a lot more thought and time into it because one little mistake and depending on what you're doing it could be completely ruined, several hours meaning absolutely nothing. The same goes for photography in the fact that tradional photography you have no idea if your picture worked until you expose it in the dark room.
lol!
This is funny to me. No media deserves more “respect”.
You as a “digital kid” are one of those people who have started work after a major transition in technique and media has taken place. It reminds me of the artists who started their training back in the 60's and 70's when traditional art training had been turned on it's head and artists stopped being trained in all the old was of mastering figure drawing, anatomy, their media and the style of the old “masters”. Their gods were the iconoclasts of the early 20th C.- Duchamp, Picasso, Kandinsky, Klee etc… So many of them never new the traditional training and missed that, unlike Piccasso etc who went from traditional styles into a later abstract decorative style that evolved with himself and his own understanding those students where thrown head first into the (then) contemporary abstract styles. SO their perspective on older styles and methods was skewed, their understanding of the contemporary very different to the artists who had created it.

-That's how it is now in a way: people who “grew up” digital and didn't have all that background in older analogue styles have a skewed perspective on the media available for them to work in…


—————–
All that means is that people will have silly arguments about “respect”. Really it's the work that matters and whether you're working in the best way for YOU.

All that matters technically is:

1. Can you afford to do it?
2. Are you able to produce the work you want with that media in that style?
3. Will those materials and technique produce a good finished result for what the work is intended?
(i.e. hanging in a gallery, part of a video work, a magazine cover, T-shirt print and so on).
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
JoeL_CQB at 11:32PM, Feb. 16, 2009
(online)
posts: 531
joined: 4-17-2007
kinda a funny thing, i've always thought traditional painting was harder than digital painting, until i tried it out. now it's the other way around. :P
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:10PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved