Epson Stylus Pro 4800

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by DeanB, Mar 5, 2007.

  1. DeanB

    DeanB Guest

    Anyone using this printer? I'd appreciate some feedback on it if
    anyone does used this machine. Such as cost per print, print quality,
    build, etc. Its around $1900 for anyone reading this just for
    interest.

    Thanks

    Dean
     
    DeanB, Mar 5, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. DeanB

    Mark² Guest

    DeanB wrote:
    > Anyone using this printer? I'd appreciate some feedback on it if
    > anyone does used this machine. Such as cost per print, print quality,
    > build, etc. Its around $1900 for anyone reading this just for
    > interest.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Dean


    I use the very similar Epson 4000 Pro. The diference with the 4800 lies
    mainly in the switch to a different ink set. One disadvantage the 4800
    suffers compared with my 4000 is that the 4800 must purge significant
    quantities of ink when you switch between matte and semi-gloss/luster paper.

    Here's a good review from Luminous Landscape. You'll note the comparisons
    made with the 4000:
    4800
    http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/4800-1st.shtml

    See also the 4000, since they are incredibly simlar, and therefor I think
    the author spent less verbage writing about the 4800:
    http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-4000.shtml

    and this update to the 4000 review here:
    http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-4000-update.shtml

    -Mark²
    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Mar 5, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. DeanB

    JimKramer Guest

    On Mar 5, 3:35 pm, "DeanB" <> wrote:
    > Anyone using this printer? I'd appreciate some feedback on it if
    > anyone does used this machine. Such as cost per print, print quality,
    > build, etc. Its around $1900 for anyone reading this just for
    > interest.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Dean


    It is a nice printer, great colors, fairly fast.

    It does not sit idle well, you either need to print every other day or
    plan on cleaning when you do want to print.
    It is a monster, big and heavy; it is nice to have access to the front
    and the back of the machine, especially if you are interested in roll
    paper.

    If you're in NC stop in and I'll print something for you.

    Jim
     
    JimKramer, Mar 5, 2007
    #3
  4. DeanB

    DeanB Guest

    On Mar 5, 4:38 pm, "JimKramer" <> wrote:
    > On Mar 5, 3:35 pm, "DeanB" <> wrote:
    >
    > > Anyone using this printer? I'd appreciate some feedback on it if
    > > anyone does used this machine. Such as cost per print, print quality,
    > > build, etc. Its around $1900 for anyone reading this just for
    > > interest.

    >
    > > Thanks

    >
    > > Dean

    >
    > It is a nice printer, great colors, fairly fast.
    >
    > It does not sit idle well, you either need to print every other day or
    > plan on cleaning when you do want to print.
    > It is a monster, big and heavy; it is nice to have access to the front
    > and the back of the machine, especially if you are interested in roll
    > paper.
    >
    > If you're in NC stop in and I'll print something for you.
    >
    > Jim


    Thanks Jim. What's involved with 'Cleaning' it? I hope its not some
    huge loss of ink.
     
    DeanB, Mar 5, 2007
    #4
  5. DeanB

    DeanB Guest

    On Mar 5, 4:08 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
    here)@cox..net> wrote:
    > DeanB wrote:
    > > Anyone using this printer? I'd appreciate some feedback on it if
    > > anyone does used this machine. Such as cost per print, print quality,
    > > build, etc. Its around $1900 for anyone reading this just for
    > > interest.

    >
    > > Thanks

    >
    > > Dean

    >
    > I use the very similar Epson 4000 Pro. The diference with the 4800 lies
    > mainly in the switch to a different ink set. One disadvantage the 4800
    > suffers compared with my 4000 is that the 4800 must purge significant
    > quantities of ink when you switch between matte and semi-gloss/luster paper.
    >
    > Here's a good review from Luminous Landscape. You'll note the comparisons
    > made with the 4000:
    > 4800http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/4800-1st.shtml
    >
    > See also the 4000, since they are incredibly simlar, and therefor I think
    > the author spent less verbage writing about the 4800:http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-4000.shtml
    >
    > and this update to the 4000 review here:http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-4000-update.shtml
    >
    > -Mark²
    > --
    > Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    > www.pbase.com/markuson


    Mark - thanks very much for the links, its an excellent set of
    reviews. Printer looks good.
     
    DeanB, Mar 5, 2007
    #5
  6. DeanB

    DeanB Guest

    If anyone has this printer (or the 4000) in New Jersey, I would really
    love a peak and a demo! I am in Princeton.

    Dean
     
    DeanB, Mar 5, 2007
    #6
  7. DeanB

    Mark² Guest

    JimKramer wrote:
    > On Mar 5, 3:35 pm, "DeanB" <> wrote:
    >> Anyone using this printer? I'd appreciate some feedback on it if
    >> anyone does used this machine. Such as cost per print, print quality,
    >> build, etc. Its around $1900 for anyone reading this just for
    >> interest.
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >>
    >> Dean

    >
    > It is a nice printer, great colors, fairly fast.
    >
    > It does not sit idle well, you either need to print every other day or
    > plan on cleaning when you do want to print.
    > It is a monster, big and heavy; it is nice to have access to the front
    > and the back of the machine, especially if you are interested in roll
    > paper.


    I haven't found that to be true at all for my 4000. I've left it for over a
    month, powered up, and it's printed just fine.
    I wouldn't think the 4800 should be any different, so this report is a
    little surprising. Perhaps the different ink set is to blame... I haven't
    had this trouble.

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Mar 5, 2007
    #7
  8. DeanB

    frederick Guest

    DeanB wrote:
    > Anyone using this printer? I'd appreciate some feedback on it if
    > anyone does used this machine. Such as cost per print, print quality,
    > build, etc. Its around $1900 for anyone reading this just for
    > interest.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Dean
    >

    For 17" printers you could perhaps also look at the Epson R3800 and
    Canon iPF5000 printers.

    The R3800 is less expensive than the 4800, and has smaller (70ml)
    cartridges vs the 110 or 220ml cartridges for the 4800, but still a lot
    less in ink cost per print than most desktop machines. It also does not
    have a roll paper feeder. It uses the same inkset (K3) as the R4800.
    Ink waste for switching from matte to gloss media is much less than the
    4800, but it still wastes a few dollars worth of ink when switching.

    The Canon iPF 5000 is being sold at very enticing discount prices. Roll
    feed is possible, but the roll paper feeder is purchased as a separate
    item. It gets pretty good reviews for reliability / lack of clogging.
    Output is supposed to be very good, perhaps not quite as low levels of
    gloss differential and bronzing as the K3 epsons. 12 colour inkset
    gives a slightly increased gamut, and no matte/photo black swap is needed.

    HP also have released some advanced (but also expensive) wide format
    pigment inkjet printers (Z2100 8 colour and Z3100 12 colour models)
    There were rumours of a 17" model - perhaps based more like the HPB9180
    13" desktop model than the "Z" series. Z series have built in
    colorimeter and software support for producing ICC custom profiles - a
    distinct advantage for printers other than Epson - where most third
    party paper suppliers offer good Epson ICC profiles for download, but
    support for Canon and HP may be a little shaky until they are better
    established in the market.
     
    frederick, Mar 5, 2007
    #8
  9. DeanB

    JimKramer Guest

    On Mar 5, 5:24 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
    here)@cox..net> wrote:
    > JimKramer wrote:
    > > On Mar 5, 3:35 pm, "DeanB" <> wrote:
    > >> Anyone using this printer? I'd appreciate some feedback on it if
    > >> anyone does used this machine. Such as cost per print, print quality,
    > >> build, etc. Its around $1900 for anyone reading this just for
    > >> interest.

    >
    > >> Thanks

    >
    > >> Dean

    >
    > > It is a nice printer, great colors, fairly fast.

    >
    > > It does not sit idle well, you either need to print every other day or
    > > plan on cleaning when you do want to print.
    > > It is a monster, big and heavy; it is nice to have access to the front
    > > and the back of the machine, especially if you are interested in roll
    > > paper.

    >
    > I haven't found that to be true at all for my 4000. I've left it for over a
    > month, powered up, and it's printed just fine.
    > I wouldn't think the 4800 should be any different, so this report is a
    > little surprising. Perhaps the different ink set is to blame... I haven't
    > had this trouble.
    >
    > --
    > Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    > www.pbase.com/markuson- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    If I let it sit for a week I know the cyan is gone completely, the
    light cyan is blotchy as are the light black and light light black and
    the yellow may or may not be bothered.

    Now if I run a single manual cleaning cycle and let it sit for 5
    minutes it will print fine, but if I let it auto clean itself , it
    will run through all the cleaning cycles on a page and then tell me it
    can't be cleaned.

    This is the second set of cartridges (went to the 220ml) and that has
    not altered the cleaning needed at all. It's frustrating, but I
    haven't seen better for the prints that it can do.
     
    JimKramer, Mar 5, 2007
    #9
  10. DeanB

    JimKramer Guest

    On Mar 5, 4:51 pm, "DeanB" <> wrote:
    > On Mar 5, 4:38 pm, "JimKramer" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Mar 5, 3:35 pm, "DeanB" <> wrote:

    >
    > > > Anyone using this printer? I'd appreciate some feedback on it if
    > > > anyone does used this machine. Such as cost per print, print quality,
    > > > build, etc. Its around $1900 for anyone reading this just for
    > > > interest.

    >
    > > > Thanks

    >
    > > > Dean

    >
    > > It is a nice printer, great colors, fairly fast.

    >
    > > It does not sit idle well, you either need to print every other day or
    > > plan on cleaning when you do want to print.
    > > It is a monster, big and heavy; it is nice to have access to the front
    > > and the back of the machine, especially if you are interested in roll
    > > paper.

    >
    > > If you're in NC stop in and I'll print something for you.

    >
    > > Jim

    >
    > Thanks Jim. What's involved with 'Cleaning' it? I hope its not some
    > huge loss of ink.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    If you believe the ink counter each complete cleaning cycle eats just
    over 2ml of ink and a piece of paper to check it.
     
    JimKramer, Mar 5, 2007
    #10
  11. DeanB

    JimKramer Guest

    On Mar 5, 4:53 pm, "DeanB" <> wrote:
    > If anyone has this printer (or the 4000) in New Jersey, I would really
    > love a peak and a demo! I am in Princeton.
    >
    > Dean


    There a probably a number of local stores that will let you look at
    prints from the printer, just not your own. :)
     
    JimKramer, Mar 5, 2007
    #11
  12. DeanB

    C Wright Guest

    On 3/5/07 2:35 PM, in article
    , "DeanB"
    <> wrote:

    > Anyone using this printer? I'd appreciate some feedback on it if
    > anyone does used this machine. Such as cost per print, print quality,
    > build, etc. Its around $1900 for anyone reading this just for
    > interest.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Dean
    >


    I have the 4800 and the biggest disadvantage has already been mentioned.
    That is the amount of ink that is wastes switching from the photo black to
    the matte black ink cartridge, and back again. I get around that by almost
    never switching. I use the photo black most all of the time and when I want
    to print on matte paper I use something like Epson's Premium Semimatte paper
    which works with the photo black cartridge.

    I don't find that it needs to be used everyday to keep the ink flowing, once
    or twice a week is enough. Also, if not used a lot, the printer 'asks' with
    some frequency if you want to run the cleaning cycle. I find that most of
    the time I can answer 'no' (saving the ink) and the printer still works
    fine. If a couple of weeks go by without using the printer I will run the
    cleaning cycle.

    My 4800 has been in use for more than a year and I remain very satisfied
    with the results that it produces. The $1900 price is not really that bad
    when one considers that you get about $500 worth of ink as a part of the
    price!
    Chuck
     
    C Wright, Mar 6, 2007
    #12
  13. DeanB

    tomm42 Guest

    On Mar 5, 3:35 pm, "DeanB" <> wrote:
    > Anyone using this printer? I'd appreciate some feedback on it if
    > anyone does used this machine. Such as cost per print, print quality,
    > build, etc. Its around $1900 for anyone reading this just for
    > interest.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Dean



    Look at the Canon IPF5000. Uses less ink than the Epson and doesn't
    clog quite as easily. Print quality is excellent, new firmware has
    stopped the grainy look that prints from the early models had. This is
    a very fast printer, about 1.5X to 2X as fast as the Epson. It also
    has replaceable heads ($600 each for 2). I just bought one, although
    it only comes with 90ml cartridges, after set up and about 100 prints,
    I haven't seen my ink levels go down very much at all. The roll paper
    adapters is the weak link on the printer. A lot of them have been
    faulty out of the box. Canon fixes them on site rather than sending it
    back. Canon has a lot to learn about the industrial photo printer
    market, kind of like Epson was when they brought out their first wide
    printers (still have my Epson 9000).
    Industrial Epsons like the 4800 are very well built machines, they may
    clog a little but their heads clean up very well. The ink loss on a
    cleaning is just part of the expense of the machine. You also don't
    get the impenetrable clogs you can get in the Epson desktops. The
    ability to use 220ml cartridges saves money on ink.
    You won't go wrong on either machine.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Mar 6, 2007
    #13
  14. DeanB

    DeanB Guest

    On Mar 6, 10:59 am, "tomm42" <> wrote:
    > On Mar 5, 3:35 pm, "DeanB" <> wrote:
    >
    > > Anyone using this printer? I'd appreciate some feedback on it if
    > > anyone does used this machine. Such as cost per print, print quality,
    > > build, etc. Its around $1900 for anyone reading this just for
    > > interest.

    >
    > > Thanks

    >
    > > Dean

    >
    > Look at the Canon IPF5000. Uses less ink than the Epson and doesn't
    > clog quite as easily. Print quality is excellent, new firmware has
    > stopped the grainy look that prints from the early models had. This is
    > a very fast printer, about 1.5X to 2X as fast as the Epson. It also
    > has replaceable heads ($600 each for 2). I just bought one, although
    > it only comes with 90ml cartridges, after set up and about 100 prints,
    > I haven't seen my ink levels go down very much at all. The roll paper
    > adapters is the weak link on the printer. A lot of them have been
    > faulty out of the box. Canon fixes them on site rather than sending it
    > back. Canon has a lot to learn about the industrial photo printer
    > market, kind of like Epson was when they brought out their first wide
    > printers (still have my Epson 9000).
    > Industrial Epsons like the 4800 are very well built machines, they may
    > clog a little but their heads clean up very well. The ink loss on a
    > cleaning is just part of the expense of the machine. You also don't
    > get the impenetrable clogs you can get in the Epson desktops. The
    > ability to use 220ml cartridges saves money on ink.
    > You won't go wrong on either machine.
    >
    > Tom


    Thanks Tom.

    But the whole message you just wrote is like an advert NOT to buy a
    Canon! But I'll take a look anyway.
     
    DeanB, Mar 6, 2007
    #14
  15. DeanB

    JR Guest

    In article <>,
    "JimKramer" <> wrote:

    > On Mar 5, 3:35 pm, "DeanB" <> wrote:
    > > Anyone using this printer? I'd appreciate some feedback on it if
    > > anyone does used this machine. Such as cost per print, print quality,
    > > build, etc. Its around $1900 for anyone reading this just for
    > > interest.
    > >
    > > Thanks
    > >
    > > Dean

    >
    > It is a nice printer, great colors, fairly fast.
    >
    > It does not sit idle well, you either need to print every other day or
    > plan on cleaning when you do want to print.
    > It is a monster, big and heavy; it is nice to have access to the front
    > and the back of the machine, especially if you are interested in roll
    > paper.
    >
    > If you're in NC stop in and I'll print something for you.
    >
    > Jim



    I have the 4800 and I have had it almost a year and only had to clean it
    once....The key is you need to leave it powered on. I have gone a week
    or two without printing and no issues...excellent color, excellent B&W's
    right out of the printer. Excellent resolution....you cannot go wrong
    with this, UNLESS you frequently go back and forth between matte and
    glossy, and I have NEVER used matte ink. I have a 2200 that is setup
    ONLY with Matte ink that I can use if I NEED matte, but I have gone to
    luster only...Its very good on ink usage, and the roll paper is
    great....and its nice to have it automatically cut the paper. I print
    11x17 prints with roll paper and the cost per sheet is VERY
    cheap...about 4 times cheaper than cut sheets....I can get a 100' roll
    for about $40. Thats about .40 a sheet, a box of 25 or 50 11x17" paper
    is about $50, about $2 a sheet. There may be cheaper papers, but that
    alone along with the 220ml cartridges make it a very economical machine.

    JR
     
    JR, Mar 6, 2007
    #15
  16. DeanB

    tomm42 Guest

    On Mar 6, 11:06 am, "DeanB" <> wrote:
    > On Mar 6, 10:59 am, "tomm42" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Mar 5, 3:35 pm, "DeanB" <> wrote:

    >
    > > > Anyone using this printer? I'd appreciate some feedback on it if
    > > > anyone does used this machine. Such as cost per print, print quality,
    > > > build, etc. Its around $1900 for anyone reading this just for
    > > > interest.

    >
    > > > Thanks

    >
    > > > Dean

    >
    > > Look at the Canon IPF5000. Uses less ink than the Epson and doesn't
    > > clog quite as easily. Print quality is excellent, new firmware has
    > > stopped the grainy look that prints from the early models had. This is
    > > a very fast printer, about 1.5X to 2X as fast as the Epson. It also
    > > has replaceable heads ($600 each for 2). I just bought one, although
    > > it only comes with 90ml cartridges, after set up and about 100 prints,
    > > I haven't seen my ink levels go down very much at all. The roll paper
    > > adapters is the weak link on the printer. A lot of them have been
    > > faulty out of the box. Canon fixes them on site rather than sending it
    > > back. Canon has a lot to learn about the industrial photo printer
    > > market, kind of like Epson was when they brought out their first wide
    > > printers (still have my Epson 9000).
    > > Industrial Epsons like the 4800 are very well built machines, they may
    > > clog a little but their heads clean up very well. The ink loss on a
    > > cleaning is just part of the expense of the machine. You also don't
    > > get the impenetrable clogs you can get in the Epson desktops. The
    > > ability to use 220ml cartridges saves money on ink.
    > > You won't go wrong on either machine.

    >
    > > Tom

    >
    > Thanks Tom.
    >
    > But the whole message you just wrote is like an advert NOT to buy a
    > Canon! But I'll take a look anyway.



    Again Canon is in a learning process but:
    No ink loss in changing black, does it seemlessly
    Superb quality prints (with the latest firmware), nice prints out of
    the box
    Better blues and greens than Epson (because of 12 inks)
    lowest ink usage of almost any printer.
    oh yes it is also a solidly built printer to the tune of 95lbs.
    That does add up to a winner. When I had the problem with the roll
    paper holder, took 24hours to get a tech person to my house in
    Vermont.
    Sorry I was a little negative before, none of these companies are
    perfect.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Mar 6, 2007
    #16
  17. DeanB

    DeanB Guest

    On Mar 6, 2:17 pm, "tomm42" <> wrote:
    > On Mar 6, 11:06 am, "DeanB" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Mar 6, 10:59 am, "tomm42" <> wrote:

    >
    > > > On Mar 5, 3:35 pm, "DeanB" <> wrote:

    >
    > > > > Anyone using this printer? I'd appreciate some feedback on it if
    > > > > anyone does used this machine. Such as cost per print, print quality,
    > > > > build, etc. Its around $1900 for anyone reading this just for
    > > > > interest.

    >
    > > > > Thanks

    >
    > > > > Dean

    >
    > > > Look at the Canon IPF5000. Uses less ink than the Epson and doesn't
    > > > clog quite as easily. Print quality is excellent, new firmware has
    > > > stopped the grainy look that prints from the early models had. This is
    > > > a very fast printer, about 1.5X to 2X as fast as the Epson. It also
    > > > has replaceable heads ($600 each for 2). I just bought one, although
    > > > it only comes with 90ml cartridges, after set up and about 100 prints,
    > > > I haven't seen my ink levels go down very much at all. The roll paper
    > > > adapters is the weak link on the printer. A lot of them have been
    > > > faulty out of the box. Canon fixes them on site rather than sending it
    > > > back. Canon has a lot to learn about the industrial photo printer
    > > > market, kind of like Epson was when they brought out their first wide
    > > > printers (still have my Epson 9000).
    > > > Industrial Epsons like the 4800 are very well built machines, they may
    > > > clog a little but their heads clean up very well. The ink loss on a
    > > > cleaning is just part of the expense of the machine. You also don't
    > > > get the impenetrable clogs you can get in the Epson desktops. The
    > > > ability to use 220ml cartridges saves money on ink.
    > > > You won't go wrong on either machine.

    >
    > > > Tom

    >
    > > Thanks Tom.

    >
    > > But the whole message you just wrote is like an advert NOT to buy a
    > > Canon! But I'll take a look anyway.

    >
    > Again Canon is in a learning process but:
    > No ink loss in changing black, does it seemlessly
    > Superb quality prints (with the latest firmware), nice prints out of
    > the box
    > Better blues and greens than Epson (because of 12 inks)
    > lowest ink usage of almost any printer.
    > oh yes it is also a solidly built printer to the tune of 95lbs.
    > That does add up to a winner. When I had the problem with the roll
    > paper holder, took 24hours to get a tech person to my house in
    > Vermont.
    > Sorry I was a little negative before, none of these companies are
    > perfect.
    >
    > Tom- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Wow that's a heavy one! (99 lb) Big too. It looks great, I'll have to
    go see one and compare.

    Cheers,

    Dean
     
    DeanB, Mar 6, 2007
    #17
  18. DeanB

    John Turco Guest

    JimKramer wrote:

    <heavily edited, for brevity>

    > This is the second set of cartridges (went to the 220ml) and that has
    > not altered the cleaning needed at all. It's frustrating, but I
    > haven't seen better for the prints that it can do.



    Hello, Jim:

    Indeed, I readily agree; I have a love-hate relationship, with my own
    Stylus Photo 825. Epson inkjets are tremendous performers -- but, only
    when and if, they can be coaxed into performing, in the first place!


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Mar 11, 2007
    #18
  19. DeanB

    Guest

    On 3ÔÂ6ÈÕ, ÉÏÎç4ʱ35·Ö, "DeanB" <> wrote:
    > Anyone using this printer? I'd appreciate some feedback on it if
    > anyone does used this machine. Such as cost per print, print quality,
    > build, etc. Its around $1900 for anyone reading this just for
    > interest.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Dean


    Good!
    http://fy4.net/ad.html
     
    , Mar 11, 2007
    #19
    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. Paul Resch

    Need CD for Epson Stylus 1280 with Epson Apps.

    Paul Resch, Sep 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    758
  2. Keith Cooper

    more A2 Epson Stylus 4000 Pro info

    Keith Cooper, Oct 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    339
    Tony Spadaro
    Oct 16, 2003
  3. Sbtypesetter

    Epson 2200 vs Stylus Pro 4000

    Sbtypesetter, Sep 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    336
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Sep 7, 2004
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    586
    tomm101
    Apr 8, 2005
  5. DeanB

    Epson Stylus Pro 4800

    DeanB, Mar 5, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    289
    DeanB
    Mar 5, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page