DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Sep 16, 2008.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the
    40D.

    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original

    This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it
    other than cropping.
    Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little
    detail, but are not quite down to true black.

    I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.
     
    Annika1980, Sep 16, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 3:57 PM:
    > Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the
    > 40D.


    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original
    >
    > This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it
    > other than cropping.
    > Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little
    > detail, but are not quite down to true black.
    >
    > I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.
    >


    Superia 400, to match the 400 iso you used, no crop:
    http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/nice wheels.jpg
    http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/upside down world.jpg
    http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/urban gold.jpg
    Would you like to see Velvia 50 6X6?
     
    Noons, Sep 16, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    +**** YOU wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 11:01 PM:
    > HEY NOONS WERE U DRUNK WHEN U POSTED THE UPSIDE DOWN PIC LOL
    >


    It's not upside down, dipshit. But you're
    too stupid to realize that, aren't you?
    Go back to school, moron.
     
    Noons, Sep 16, 2008
    #3
  4. Annika1980

    Draco Guest

    On Sep 16, 7:31 am, Noons <> wrote:
    > Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 3:57 PM:
    >
    > > Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the
    > > 40D.
    > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original

    >
    > > This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it
    > > other than cropping.
    > > Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little
    > > detail, but are not quite down to true black.

    >
    > > I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.

    >
    > Superia 400, to match the 400 iso you used, no crop:http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto...t.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/urban gold.jpg
    > Would you like to see Velvia 50 6X6?


    Hey Noons, Nice work. I thought the "upside" was inverted until I
    looked a little closer. Nice illusion. Keep at it.

    Velvia 50 6x6? Now that would fill the screen alright.


    Draco
     
    Draco, Sep 16, 2008
    #4
  5. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Sep 16, 2008
    #5
  6. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    On Sep 16, 1:31 am, Noons <> wrote:
    > Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 3:57 PM:
    >
    > > Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the
    > > 40D.
    > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original

    >
    > > This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it
    > > other than cropping.
    > > Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little
    > > detail, but are not quite down to true black.

    >
    > > I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.

    >
    > Superia 400, to match the 400 iso you used, no crop:http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto...t.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/urban gold.jpg
    > Would you like to see Velvia 50 6X6?


    In the first one
    http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/nice wheels.jpg
    You can see the film struggling, the sky is full of noise, even with
    the reduced size image.
    The shadows have gone to close to black and there is no detail in
    them.
    If you like the high contrast look that is fine, but it does not show
    much DR at all.
    The other two photos don't show any more DR.

    I am not saying the low DR makes them bad photos, just that they don't
    have much DR. A whole lot of good photos have been taken over the
    years with reversal film, and I have very small DR.

    Now before you get all mad, I have to say that Bret's photo also is
    not good at showing high DR, is has some whites in it but no good
    shadows that are in focus. Would the 40D have done better on your
    scene, hard to know.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 16, 2008
    #6
  7. On 9/15/2008 10:57 PM Annika1980 spake thus:

    > Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the
    > 40D.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original
    >
    > This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it
    > other than cropping.
    > Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little
    > detail, but are not quite down to true black.
    >
    > I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.


    This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
    which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital
    cameras that look like 35mm SLRs (DSLRs).

    Since this post concerns such cameras, the appropriate place for it is
    rec.photo.digital.slr. Please post there in the future.


    --
    Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
    powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

    - Paulo Freire
     
    David Nebenzahl, Sep 16, 2008
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    On Sep 16, 10:34 am, Alan Browne <>
    wrote:
    > Annika1980 wrote:
    > > Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the
    > > 40D.

    >
    > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original

    >
    > > This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it
    > > other than cropping.
    > > Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little
    > > detail, but are not quite down to true black.

    >
    > > I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.

    >
    > I'd like to see a posted photo similar to the color negative from
    > yesterday v. the Canon.
    >
    > Really, that's the only way to compare.

    Roger Clark did a comparison some time ago
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/index.html

    Had he over exposed the film he might be gotten more shadow detail,
    but for a normal exposer
    film, at least Kodak Royal Gold 200, has very poor range in the
    shadows.

    Slide film is of course much worse yet.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 16, 2008
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 2:36 AM:

    > In the first one
    > http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/nice wheels.jpg
    > You can see the film struggling, the sky is full of noise, even with
    > the reduced size image.


    Actually, it's called clouds. Not noise.
    And exactly which detail do you expect to see in clouds in
    the sky? But let's not allow reality to get in the way of
    a good anti-film rant, shall we?

    > The shadows have gone to close to black and there is no detail in
    > them.


    Actually, the shadows have no noise and are full of detail in the
    high rez version. But of course shadows are shadows: if you
    expect to see pores in the bricks then it might be a good idea
    to actually take a photo exposed to said bricks?
    Also: I'd love to see what a dslr would do to that corrugated
    iron roof. Most likely it'd be full of moiree...

    > If you like the high contrast look that is fine, but it does not show
    > much DR at all.


    Doesn't it? Prove it: demonstrate to me where is it that
    you can see high DR? Of course, do not come back to me
    with an example where all tones are the same intensity:
    that is just the drap watercoloured digital mush that some
    folks call "high dr". And no: an image made out of multiple
    raw stitched together is NOT high DR: it is just another
    example of watercoloured drab, non-constrasty, non-saturated
    digital mush.

    > The other two photos don't show any more DR.


    Really? Why? Did you look at the shadows in the verandas?


    > I am not saying the low DR makes them bad photos, just that they don't
    > have much DR. A whole lot of good photos have been taken over the
    > years with reversal film, and I have very small DR.


    Like I said: demonstrate what you call high dr.
    Just claiming that everything in sight is not high dr because
    it is not digital is pretty poor form. And no: a drab old
    non-contrast dslr image with washed out highlights
    and shadows smeared out of existence by the anti-noise processing
    is NOT an example of high dr.


    > Now before you get all mad, I have to say that Bret's photo also is
    > not good at showing high DR, is has some whites in it but no good
    > shadows that are in focus. Would the 40D have done better on your
    > scene, hard to know.


    Exactly. Problem is: I do have a D80 which has taken a photo
    in the same place, same lens, same exposure parameters.
    I won't post it because it might shock Rita...
    :)
     
    Noons, Sep 17, 2008
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 8:04 AM:

    > Roger Clark did a comparison some time ago
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/index.html


    Funny how that site is "good" to demonstrate
    "bad film" but is "bad" to demonstrate digital
    weak points...

    > Had he over exposed the film he might be gotten more shadow detail,
    > but for a normal exposer
    > film, at least Kodak Royal Gold 200, has very poor range in the
    > shadows.


    That is indeed true. And also of most of the
    "comparisons" in most of the sites out there:
    made years ago, with bad scanning technique of bad
    film and badly exposed images. Not surprising that
    it looks so bad overall...

    > Slide film is of course much worse yet.


    Actually, it isn't.
     
    Noons, Sep 17, 2008
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Draco wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 12:43 AM:



    > Hey Noons, Nice work. I thought the "upside" was inverted until I
    > looked a little closer. Nice illusion. Keep at it.


    Yeah, surprising what happens when one uses
    eyes as they are supposed to be used, instead
    of just accepting whatever is shown as reality...
    Thanks, I certainly shall!
    ;)


    > Velvia 50 6x6? Now that would fill the screen alright.


    It does:
    http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20107727/
     
    Noons, Sep 17, 2008
    #11
  12. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Sep 16, 8:44 pm, Noons <> wrote:
    >
    > There is not a single highlight blown in there.
    > Thanks for demonstrating you don't have a clue what a
    > blown highlight is.



    There are areas in all of your shots you posted that are 255,255,255.
    There are also areas that are 0,0,0.
    Good luck printing those.

    In your defense, the pics looked a lot better on my calibrated monitor
    at home than my crappy LCD monitor at work.
     
    Annika1980, Sep 17, 2008
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    On Sep 16, 3:07 pm, Noons <> wrote:
    > Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 8:04 AM:
    >
    > > Roger Clark did a comparison some time ago
    > >http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/index.html

    >
    > Funny how that site is "good" to demonstrate
    > "bad film" but is "bad" to demonstrate digital
    > weak points...
    >
    > > Had he over exposed the film he might be gotten more shadow detail,
    > > but for a normal exposer
    > > film, at least Kodak Royal Gold 200, has very poor range in the
    > > shadows.

    >
    > That is indeed true.  And also of most of the
    > "comparisons" in most of the sites out there:
    > made years ago, with bad scanning technique of bad
    > film and badly exposed images.  Not surprising that
    > it looks so bad overall...
    >
    > > Slide film is of course much worse yet.

    >
    > Actually, it isn't


    I am not sure what you are thinking here, slide film has maybe 5 stops
    of range, I don't know of any negative film that is that narrow. The
    output of some slide film is on the order of 10 stops, because it is
    so high in contrast, but the capture range is very small.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 17, 2008
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    On Sep 16, 3:00 pm, Noons <> wrote:
    > Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 2:36 AM:
    >
    > > In the first one
    > >http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/nice wheels.jpg
    > > You can see the film struggling, the sky is full of noise, even with
    > > the reduced size image.

    >
    > Actually, it's called clouds.  Not noise.
    > And exactly which detail do you expect to see in clouds in
    > the sky? But let's not allow reality to get in the way of
    > a good anti-film rant, shall we?
    >
    > > The shadows have gone to close to black and there is no detail in
    > > them.

    >
    > Actually, the shadows have no noise and are full of detail in the
    > high rez version.  But of course shadows are shadows: if you
    > expect to see pores in the bricks then it might be a good idea
    > to actually take a photo exposed to said bricks?
    > Also: I'd love to see what a dslr would do to that corrugated
    > iron roof. Most likely it'd be full of moiree...
    >
    > > If you like the high contrast look that is fine, but it does not show
    > > much DR at all.

    >
    > Doesn't it? Prove it: demonstrate to me where is it that
    > you can see high DR?  Of course, do not come back to me
    > with an example where all tones are the same intensity:
    > that is just the drap watercoloured digital mush that some
    > folks call "high dr".  And no: an image made out of multiple
    > raw stitched together is NOT high DR: it is just another
    > example of watercoloured drab, non-constrasty, non-saturated
    > digital mush.
    >
    > > The other two photos don't show any more DR.

    >
    > Really?  Why? Did you look at the shadows in the verandas?
    >
    > > I am not saying the low DR makes them bad photos, just that they don't
    > > have much DR.  A whole lot of good photos have been taken over the
    > > years with reversal film, and I have very small DR.

    >
    > Like I said: demonstrate what you call high dr.
    > Just claiming that everything in sight is not high dr because
    > it is not digital is pretty poor form.  And no: a drab old
    > non-contrast dslr image with washed out highlights
    > and shadows smeared out of existence by the anti-noise processing
    > is NOT an example of high dr.
    >
    > > Now before you get all mad, I have to say that Bret's photo also is
    > > not good at showing high DR, is has some whites in it but no good
    > > shadows that are in focus.  Would the 40D have done better on your
    > > scene, hard to know.

    >
    > Exactly.  Problem is: I do have a D80 which has taken a photo
    > in the same place, same lens, same exposure parameters.
    > I won't post it because it might shock Rita...
    > :)


    This is the kind of scene that is good for a test, bright light on the
    highlight and very deep shadows.
    http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/103253296/original
    If you load that into photoshop and adjust so that you expand the
    bottom 20 levels to go from 0 to 255 you will see that there is a lot
    of detail in the shadow in those bottom 20 levels.

    With the detail there I can, if I wish, pull the detail out of the
    shadows with a bit of dodging.

    The only real way to compare film vs digital is to shoot the exact
    same scene, having someone skilled with digital shooting the digital
    shot and someone skilled with film doing the film shot.

    I think some negative films could do very well, if they were exposed a
    couple of stop passed where most people tend to expose there film.
    Slide film would not have a chance IMO.

    Over all I don't think DR is a large problem for either film or
    digital, but the film fans that keep using the high DR of film as a
    reason to shoot film often don't have a clue about what they are
    talking about.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 17, 2008
    #14
  15. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    On Sep 16, 3:13 pm, Noons <> wrote:
    > Draco wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 12:43 AM:
    >
    > > Hey Noons, Nice work. I thought the "upside" was inverted until I
    > > looked a little closer. Nice illusion. Keep at it.

    >
    > Yeah, surprising what happens when one uses
    > eyes as they are supposed to be used, instead
    > of just accepting whatever is shown as reality...
    > Thanks, I certainly shall!
    > ;)
    >
    > > Velvia 50 6x6? Now that would fill the screen alright.

    >
    > It does:http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20107727/


    Down size that by a factor of 2 and you have one sharp image.

    At full resolution it is a bit soft.

    An easy test, down size to half and back up, not much difference at
    all.

    I will point out that the output of DSLRs is not perfectly sharp
    either, and will shrapen up with a bit of down sizing, but the limit
    for most DSLRs is down sizing by to about 70% or so.

    Put it all together and I figure you image would roughly match a DSLR
    that had about 25 MP, and a really good lens.

    This is still very impressive, just not 72MP impressive.

    Of course when comparing a 6x6 camera to a DSLR it all comes down to
    what aspect ratio you want, if you what 1:1 then the DSLR is going to
    have to crop out 33% of its pixels, if you want 2:3 then the 6x6
    camera is going to have to crop out 33% of its pixels.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 17, 2008
    #15
  16. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Sep 17, 2:11 am, Scott W <> wrote:
    >
    > > > Slide film is of course much worse yet.

    > > Actually, it isn't

    >
    > I am not sure what you are thinking here,



    Dude, you're talking to Noons. Thinking doesn't enter into it.
     
    Annika1980, Sep 17, 2008
    #16
  17. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:56 PM:

    >>> Velvia 50 6x6? Now that would fill the screen alright.

    >> It does:http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20107727/

    >
    > Down size that by a factor of 2 and you have one sharp image.


    yeah, sure...

    >
    > At full resolution it is a bit soft.


    ANY digitised image at full resolution
    is a "bit soft"! Any other pearls of
    idiocy you'd like to share?


    > An easy test, down size to half and back up, not much difference at
    > all.



    yeah sure: downsize and upsize a "lossless" file like jpg?
    Are you for real or you think everyone is an idiot?


    > I will point out that the output of DSLRs is not perfectly sharp
    > either, and will shrapen up with a bit of down sizing, but the limit
    > for most DSLRs is down sizing by to about 70% or so.


    Sure. Try this:
    http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20548136/
    Shit: there goes the 5d2 rez, eh?


    > Put it all together and I figure you image would roughly match a DSLR
    > that had about 25 MP, and a really good lens.


    BWAHAHAHA!
    Any other bullshit you'd like to propose?


    > This is still very impressive, just not 72MP impressive.


    Nevertheless, it sucks that it is 72MP, doesn't it?
    And no amount of crappola from the likes of you
    is gonna change that.

    > Of course when comparing a 6x6 camera to a DSLR it all comes down to
    > what aspect ratio you want, if you what 1:1 then the DSLR is going to
    > have to crop out 33% of its pixels, if you want 2:3 then the 6x6
    > camera is going to have to crop out 33% of its pixels.


    wouldn't that be why I provided a cropped image as well?
    Or did you miss that little detail in your haste?
     
    Noons, Sep 19, 2008
    #17
  18. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 1:35 PM:

    > There are areas in all of your shots you posted that are 255,255,255.
    > There are also areas that are 0,0,0.
    > Good luck printing those.


    No problem whatsoever. It's called full dynamic range.
    Something you dslr users are not familiar with, with
    that washed out watercolour stuff you call "photos".

    Ever tried to get an image with ANYTHING outside
    200,200,200 and 100,100,100?

    You should really try it: it's called full dynamic range
    and is what reality uses. Your beloved Ansel Adams invented
    a thing to help get that called the zone system: it had
    quite a few more zones than just 4-6.
    That's why his stuff was so impressive. Try producing
    images that have more than 150 different steps in tonality,
    it's not really that hard and quite rewarding.

    >
    > In your defense, the pics looked a lot better on my calibrated monitor
    > at home than my crappy LCD monitor at work.


    I know. If I find a way of making pictures look good
    in ANY monitor including the crap people work with most
    of the time, I'll let you know!
    Try this for REAL detail:
    http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20548136/
    LOL!
     
    Noons, Sep 19, 2008
    #18
  19. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:24 PM:


    > This is the kind of scene that is good for a test, bright light on the
    > highlight and very deep shadows.
    > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/103253296/original


    Yeah, I know:
    http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/primeval-swamp-02-91534639
    is an example. Once again, Superia 400. Not even Velvia
    or Astia!


    > If you load that into photoshop and adjust so that you expand the
    > bottom 20 levels to go from 0 to 255 you will see that there is a lot
    > of detail in the shadow in those bottom 20 levels.
    >
    > With the detail there I can, if I wish, pull the detail out of the
    > shadows with a bit of dodging.



    Or if you scan for shadows and correct curve for highlights
    like I did in the above example, you end up with detail in all
    of it. That's DR compression and is what negative film has
    been doing for eons.
    "compression", because most srgb monitors and printers have
    difficulty showing more than about 5-6 EIs, even though
    8-bit colour video cards can *theoretically* show 8.



    > The only real way to compare film vs digital is to shoot the exact
    > same scene, having someone skilled with digital shooting the digital
    > shot and someone skilled with film doing the film shot.


    Absolutely. Why do you think I have a D80 and film?
    I *did* such comparisons regularly. And quite frankly,
    there is simply no difference. With film, saturation
    is easier to accent. With digital, you get less noise
    problems. Overall, DR is the same in both. Medium
    format is different, though. I still haven't worked
    that one out, still trying to get it under control.

    I reserve my opinion on this for raw files from the new
    crop of dslrs, like the D700 and the 5D2: 14-bit colour
    DR is some really serious stuff! If nothing else,
    the resulting compression range will be amazing.


    > I think some negative films could do very well, if they were exposed a
    > couple of stop passed where most people tend to expose there film.
    > Slide film would not have a chance IMO.


    Actually, I disagree here. Negative films can do very well,
    but need proper placement of exposure in their dynamic range.
    Usually this means correct zone system placement, rather than
    just the usual "open up 1 stop". Slide film will cover 5-6
    EIs easily, which if exposed properly is *more than enough*
    for the VAST majority of monitors and printers out there.
    Although of course dynamic range compression is less there:
    if the scene is more than 6 EIs, you gotta do some trickery
    to get slides to cover it.


    > Over all I don't think DR is a large problem for either film or
    > digital, but the film fans that keep using the high DR of film as a
    > reason to shoot film often don't have a clue about what they are
    > talking about.


    Exactly. In most cases it's not even high DR, it's just
    different DR compression levels and ratios.
    Most digital displays use 6-7 EIs at best and that's a physical
    limit not easily overcome. Even less for most digital printers.
    The workaround is to compress a higher DR into that range.
    Which can be done with film or digital, it's just a means
    to an end.
     
    Noons, Sep 19, 2008
    #19
  20. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Gosh! You keep that up and you'll
    get moiree, David!


    David J. Littleboy wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:33 PM:
    > "Scott W" <> wrote:
    > I think some negative films could do very well, if they were exposed a
    > couple of stop passed where most people tend to expose there film.
    > Slide film would not have a chance IMO.
    > <<<<<<<<<<<<
    >
    > People keep saying that, but I wonder. I suspect that color balance gets out
    > of wack (or something else goes wrong) if you overexpose beyond what they
    > are designed for. If overxposing were a sensible thing to do, the film mfrs
    > would say so. But they don't.


    Exactly. I go for correct placement of tones in the
    zone scale. Works every single time. When I get
    the patience to do it, of course...
     
    Noons, Sep 19, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Robert Feinman

    Scene range vs dynamic range

    Robert Feinman, Jun 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    704
    Marvin
    Jul 4, 2005
  2. M-M

    THE MOON LOVES THE 40D !

    M-M, Oct 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    344
  3. Annika1980

    LATE-BREAKING NEWS LOVES THE 40D!

    Annika1980, Nov 4, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    327
  4. Annika1980

    2008 LOVES THE 40D!

    Annika1980, Jan 1, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    545
    Eric Miller
    Jan 3, 2008
  5. Annika1980

    FUNNY FACES LOVES THE 40D!

    Annika1980, Sep 13, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    337
    tony cooper
    Sep 13, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page