Organising Photos on Hard Drive

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robin, Apr 22, 2007.

  1. Robin

    Robin Guest

    Hi all

    I have just scanned all my 35mm film, which has spurred me to re-evaluate
    the way I store/organise the photos on my hard drive. I don't want to use
    third party photo organising software to organising my photos because I
    don't want to be dependant on any software.

    With my digital photos, on the top level I have folders for each year (2007,
    2006, etc). I then have sub-folders that I create for each particular
    occasion, naming it by date first. For example, I create a folder called
    '2007.04.22 XYZ Occasion' as a sub folder of '2007'.

    The reason for the post is because before I organise my 35mm film scans, I
    am interested in how other people are storing there photos on their hard
    drives.
    Robin, Apr 22, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robin

    Jerry Guest

    Robin wrote:
    > Hi all
    >
    > I have just scanned all my 35mm film, which has spurred me to re-evaluate
    > the way I store/organise the photos on my hard drive. I don't want to use
    > third party photo organising software to organising my photos because I
    > don't want to be dependant on any software.
    >
    > With my digital photos, on the top level I have folders for each year (2007,
    > 2006, etc). I then have sub-folders that I create for each particular
    > occasion, naming it by date first. For example, I create a folder called
    > '2007.04.22 XYZ Occasion' as a sub folder of '2007'.
    >
    > The reason for the post is because before I organise my 35mm film scans, I
    > am interested in how other people are storing there photos on their hard
    > drives.
    >If you don't want to be dependent on software how did you scan your

    slides? Images taken with digital cameras can't be viewed without
    software. I suggest you stick to film, and you are posting to the worng
    group
    Jerry, Apr 22, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robin

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Robin
    <> wrote:

    > Hi all
    >
    > I have just scanned all my 35mm film, which has spurred me to re-evaluate
    > the way I store/organise the photos on my hard drive. I don't want to use
    > third party photo organising software to organising my photos because I
    > don't want to be dependant on any software.
    >
    > With my digital photos, on the top level I have folders for each year (2007,
    > 2006, etc). I then have sub-folders that I create for each particular
    > occasion, naming it by date first. For example, I create a folder called
    > '2007.04.22 XYZ Occasion' as a sub folder of '2007'.
    >
    > The reason for the post is because before I organise my 35mm film scans, I
    > am interested in how other people are storing there photos on their hard
    > drives.


    i use 'third party photo organising software' because i want my
    computer to make my life easier, not more difficult. for instance, i
    can instantly retrieve images based on date taken, location, subject
    matter, personal rating of the image, image size, camera, particular
    lens, shutter speed and numerous other attributes or any combination
    thereof. i can also export a web gallery or print images in any of a
    number of layouts.

    the files are still easily accessible on the hard drive and can remain
    in whatever folder heirarchy i want, so it is the best of both worlds.
    nospam, Apr 22, 2007
    #3
  4. Robin

    Guest

    On Apr 22, 11:07 am, "Robin" <> wrote:
    > The reason for the post is because before I organise my 35mm film scans, I
    > am interested in how other people are storing there photos on their hard
    > drives.


    I share your concern about proprietary photo organizers. I have some
    CP/M backups (yes, I'm that old) that used a proprietary backup format
    and can no longer get at those files even though I can read the disks.
    I suppose if I tried hard enough or spent enough $ I could read the
    files, but that's the point -- to have them readily available. Hence I
    prefer both backups and photos organized in a way that is likely to
    survive the next 25 years minimally -- which is how old my CP/M files
    are.

    I have to admit that I have succumbed to the seductive ease of using
    iPhoto for my new digital photos -- I figure iPhoto is popular enough
    that, if it ever goes away, there will be software to retrieve the
    photos and put them in files that are bettr organized for human
    consumption. But for my scans of my slides and those of my father, as
    well as my pre-Mac digital photos, I use a system very similar to
    yours -- one folder per year and then subfolders, with the date in the
    lead position of the folder name, with a brief description following.
    I use GraphConverter to view these photos and love it. It also has
    some neat additional features (e.g., renaming batches of scans that
    end in .tiffXXX where XXX is a number -- Finder requires you to
    confirm every time you change the extension, and it regard going from
    tiffXXX to tiff as a change!) and the price is right (about $30 plus
    another $5-10 for Hagens' manual which is a must; the bundled manual
    is useless).

    Hope this helps.

    Martin
    , Apr 22, 2007
    #4
  5. Robin

    thehick Guest

    On Apr 22, 4:02 pm, nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Robin

    ....
    > > I have just scanned all my 35mm film, which has spurred me to re-evaluate
    > > the way I store/organise the photos on my hard drive. I don't want to use
    > > third party photo organising software to organising my photos because I
    > > don't want to be dependant on any software.

    I agree with that.

    > > With my digital photos, on the top level I have folders for each year (2007,
    > > 2006, etc). I then have sub-folders that I create for each particular
    > > occasion, naming it by date first. For example, I create a folder called
    > > '2007.04.22 XYZ Occasion' as a sub folder of '2007'.

    That'll work perfectly. Exactly what I do.

    ....
    > i use 'third party photo organising software' because i want my
    > computer to make my life easier, not more difficult. for instance, i
    > can instantly retrieve images based on date taken, location, ...etc

    So far, I have never had the need to see photos I have taken
    organized by camera model. Looks important to you but
    hardly a universal requirement.

    > the files are still easily accessible on the hard drive and can remain
    > in whatever folder heirarchy i want, so it is the best of both worlds.

    Yes it is with the proviso that in 5 years that software may not
    be usable and then what will you have. If you are just using EXIF
    then this is available to everybody forever. Including the original
    poster.

    Robin, you are doing fine. You made another post that you want to
    back up to an external hard drive. Better and better. The suggestion
    that you use SyncToy is good too. It is pretty configurable
    and works quick enough.

    The only additional suggestion I would make is that you get 1 more
    hard drive and make an off-site backup monthly or so depending
    on the changes you've made. You have an enormous investment
    in your photos and it would be a shame to lose it in a house fire.
    Just take the drive to another family member's house.

    I too have started scanning in my printed pictures. A little problem
    is that sometimes the pictures are crooked in the scanner
    and I have to crop to a crooked rectangle. or rotate or something.
    Do you have this problem? if so, what solution do you have?
    thanks...thehick
    thehick, Apr 22, 2007
    #5
  6. Robin

    Allen Guest

    Jerry wrote:

    >> If you don't want to be dependent on software how did you scan your

    > slides? Images taken with digital cameras can't be viewed without
    > software. I suggest you stick to film, and you are posting to the worng
    > group


    He didn't scan them to more film. He scanned them to digital images. The
    name of the group is rec.photo.digital. What he now has are digital photos.

    For the OP: I also scanned a few thousand slides; I organized the people
    pictures by date just as you did; the others by type of subject or
    occasion. I have often thought that I should try to create a data base
    so that I could enter a name, a location, a flower type, etc and bring
    up a list of images, hopefully with thumbnails. The chances of my doing
    this, though, are close to nil. So many images, so little time. This
    sort of program is the kind of thing that people keep asking about on
    classical music ngs--show me everything by a certain composer, or a
    performer, or a label, or particular recording date, or any combination
    of these. The biggest problem is not designing a DB, but in populating
    it and forcing oneself to keep it updated.
    Allen
    Allen, Apr 22, 2007
    #6
  7. Robin

    Ben Brugman Guest


    >If you don't want to be dependent on software how did you scan your
    > slides? Images taken with digital cameras can't be viewed without
    > software. I suggest you stick to film, and you are posting to the worng
    > group


    Not wanting to depend on software does nog mean you do not want to
    use software, you just don't want to depend on specific software.
    (The OP should have written specific software).
    Advises for those are use a storage system which can me recognised
    by different brands of computers. (USB sticks/CD-roms/DVD can be
    used independendly of most brands of OS or computers).
    Use commonly used file formats, for example JPG's can be processed
    by many different programs and many different computers.

    So having JPG pictures on CD-rom doesn't make you depend on
    specific software.

    ben
    Ben Brugman, Apr 22, 2007
    #7
  8. Robin

    Ben Brugman Guest

    My organisation.

    Foldernames Starting with a letter and then yyyymmdd_<description>
    Names of the Pictures a letter then yyymmdd_hh_mm_ssn<extra's>
    the n is for a number if more pictures are taken within the same second.
    The extra's often is a code witch type of raw (or other) processing I have
    done.
    The raw's are kept but also a jpg is kept of every picture.
    (The jpg is more software independend or specific software independend).

    Then the most important pictures are written to CD-rom and delivered to
    another party. But because CD-roms can not be trusted in the long while,
    I keep external disks to make backups. (These are probably windows
    dependend, but not a specific PC or specific windows version).

    I make the backups by hand, check how far the backup is made last time,
    then add the new folders. (Easy because of the dating of folders).

    Disks are now so cheap that I am thinking about keeping offsite copies
    on disks. (Up to now not everything goes offsite).

    Ben.


    "Robin" <> schreef in bericht
    news:...
    > Hi all
    >
    > I have just scanned all my 35mm film, which has spurred me to re-evaluate
    > the way I store/organise the photos on my hard drive. I don't want to use
    > third party photo organising software to organising my photos because I
    > don't want to be dependant on any software.
    >
    > With my digital photos, on the top level I have folders for each year
    > (2007, 2006, etc). I then have sub-folders that I create for each
    > particular occasion, naming it by date first. For example, I create a
    > folder called '2007.04.22 XYZ Occasion' as a sub folder of '2007'.
    >
    > The reason for the post is because before I organise my 35mm film scans, I
    > am interested in how other people are storing there photos on their hard
    > drives.
    >
    >
    >
    Ben Brugman, Apr 22, 2007
    #8
  9. Robin

    KenJr Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    [snip]
    > With my digital photos, on the top level I have folders for each year (2007,
    > 2006, etc). I then have sub-folders that I create for each particular
    > occasion, naming it by date first. For example, I create a folder called
    > '2007.04.22 XYZ Occasion' as a sub folder of '2007'.

    [snip]

    For me, I like to organize by subject. top level directories are Family,
    House, Scenic, Events, Work, etc.

    Then I create subfolders in each of those such as in Family there is
    Mom&Dad, a folder for each of my brothers and sisters families, one for
    the pets, etc, with a folder for special occasions such as birthday
    parties, weddings and so forth which most of the family members attend.

    I do a lot of my own work around the house so I have folders for the
    bathroom, kitchen and so on with before and after pictures of the work
    I've done.

    Scenic is divided into folders for flowers, wildlife, landscape, etc.

    This is what works for me. Choose a method that works for you. I also
    use ACDSee which allows me to edit the EXIF and IPTC fields to add
    keywords to the files to make searchs easier. The changes are stored in
    each of the pictures so I can use any program that reads EXIF or IPTC
    data to search for pictures.
    KenJr, Apr 22, 2007
    #9
  10. Robin

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    thehick <> wrote:

    > > i use 'third party photo organising software' because i want my
    > > computer to make my life easier, not more difficult. for instance, i
    > > can instantly retrieve images based on date taken, location, ...etc

    > So far, I have never had the need to see photos I have taken
    > organized by camera model. Looks important to you but
    > hardly a universal requirement.


    viewing images by which camera was used is just one possibility of what
    can be done, and obviously, not one of the more common scenarios. the
    key is that one can select images based on one or more attributes of
    the image, and not just the filename and its location on the hard
    drive.

    for instance, someone might want all images of a particular person,
    regardless of when or where it was taken. or if someone shoots a lot
    of sports, they might want all pictures of a particular team, or maybe
    a specific player. if they like to take pictures of flowers, someone
    might want to view pictures of just roses. doing that with a hierarchy
    of files and folders is virtually impossible.

    > > the files are still easily accessible on the hard drive and can remain
    > > in whatever folder heirarchy i want, so it is the best of both worlds.

    > Yes it is with the proviso that in 5 years that software may not
    > be usable and then what will you have. If you are just using EXIF
    > then this is available to everybody forever. Including the original
    > poster.


    the software doesn't factor in at all.

    at any point in time, now or in the future, one can browse the hard
    drive for any image within the folder hierarchy. using additional
    software just makes it easier.
    nospam, Apr 22, 2007
    #10
  11. Robin

    nospam Guest

    In article <462bca46$0$17126$>, Allen
    <> wrote:

    > This
    > sort of program is the kind of thing that people keep asking about on
    > classical music ngs--show me everything by a certain composer, or a
    > performer, or a label, or particular recording date, or any combination
    > of these. The biggest problem is not designing a DB, but in populating
    > it and forcing oneself to keep it updated.


    let the computer do the work - when encoding a cd to mp3, an online
    database such as cddb can be automatically queried for the pertinent
    information. if one buys music, say from the itunes music store, the
    tags already are already filled with the appropriate information. at
    worst, minor adjustements may need to be corrected (and can be done in
    groups, such as changing all occurences of j.s. bach to bach, j.s.).
    nospam, Apr 22, 2007
    #11
  12. Robin

    Jerry Guest

    Allen wrote:
    > Jerry wrote:
    >
    >>> If you don't want to be dependent on software how did you scan your

    >> slides? Images taken with digital cameras can't be viewed without
    >> software. I suggest you stick to film, and you are posting to the
    >> worng group

    >
    > He didn't scan them to more film. He scanned them to digital images. The
    > name of the group is rec.photo.digital. What he now has are digital photos.
    >

    How did he scan them without using some sort of software? Digital
    images need software to convert them to something viewable, on a screen,
    printer or whatever output device you like
    Jerry, Apr 23, 2007
    #12
  13. Robin

    Jerry Guest

    Ben Brugman wrote:
    >> If you don't want to be dependent on software how did you scan your
    >> slides? Images taken with digital cameras can't be viewed without
    >> software. I suggest you stick to film, and you are posting to the worng
    >> group

    >
    > Not wanting to depend on software does nog mean you do not want to
    > use software, you just don't want to depend on specific software.
    > (The OP should have written specific software).
    > Advises for those are use a storage system which can me recognised
    > by different brands of computers. (USB sticks/CD-roms/DVD can be
    > used independendly of most brands of OS or computers).
    > Use commonly used file formats, for example JPG's can be processed
    > by many different programs and many different computers.
    >
    > So having JPG pictures on CD-rom doesn't make you depend on
    > specific software.


    That isn't what he said
    "I don't want to be dependant on *any* software"
    the word *any* has a much different meaning than *specific*. Perhaps
    the OP will come back and clarify his post if he didn't mean what he typed
    Jerry, Apr 23, 2007
    #13
  14. Robin

    Marvin Guest

    Robin wrote:
    > Hi all
    >
    > I have just scanned all my 35mm film, which has spurred me to re-evaluate
    > the way I store/organise the photos on my hard drive. I don't want to use
    > third party photo organising software to organising my photos because I
    > don't want to be dependant on any software.
    >
    > With my digital photos, on the top level I have folders for each year (2007,
    > 2006, etc). I then have sub-folders that I create for each particular
    > occasion, naming it by date first. For example, I create a folder called
    > '2007.04.22 XYZ Occasion' as a sub folder of '2007'.
    >
    > The reason for the post is because before I organise my 35mm film scans, I
    > am interested in how other people are storing there photos on their hard
    > drives.
    >

    I use a similar system. A folder for each year; under that
    a folder for each month; under that a folder for special
    occasions or subjects. My wife does something similar, but
    she also renames many photos with names of people or other
    descriptives to use for searching.
    Marvin, Apr 23, 2007
    #14
  15. Robin

    Paul Allen Guest

    On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:07:01 +0100
    "Robin" <> wrote:

    > Hi all
    >
    > I have just scanned all my 35mm film, which has spurred me to
    > re-evaluate the way I store/organise the photos on my hard drive. I
    > don't want to use third party photo organising software to organising
    > my photos because I don't want to be dependant on any software.
    >
    > With my digital photos, on the top level I have folders for each year
    > (2007, 2006, etc). I then have sub-folders that I create for each
    > particular occasion, naming it by date first. For example, I create
    > a folder called '2007.04.22 XYZ Occasion' as a sub folder of '2007'.
    >
    > The reason for the post is because before I organise my 35mm film
    > scans, I am interested in how other people are storing there photos
    > on their hard drives.


    The big secret of computers is that they are programmable and anyone
    can write software. Those who decide for some reason that they either
    cannot or will not write software must depend on the software of others.
    Lots of folks find dependence on third-party software acceptable.

    There is a compromise position between diving into programming and
    being locked into proprietary systems. Software that is open source
    or at least has an open database format can be adapted to do what you
    need even if its developers abandon it. If you choose software that
    is open and used widely enough, there will likely always be developers
    interested in maintaining and improving it.

    Of course, the most independence is achieved by writing software that
    does exactly what you want. That's what I did, starting back in mid-
    2000. Finding nothing that even remotely did what I wanted for Unix,
    I started hacking on a little perl script. Gradually, in bits that
    could be understood and implemented in a Sunday afternoon, it has grown
    to about 8500 lines of perl/Tk code. It uses XML for its metadata
    database, giving me boatloads of tools to manipulate it. It is has
    a graphical point-n-shoot interface for tagging, importing, searching,
    printing, cropping, archiving, etc. In short, it does almost exactly
    what I need, and the "almost" part is being whittled away in bite-sized
    chunks every now and then.

    I hope you get what you want.

    Paul Allen
    Paul Allen, Apr 23, 2007
    #15
  16. Robin

    ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:20:10 +1200, Jerry wrote:

    >> So having JPG pictures on CD-rom doesn't make you depend on
    >> specific software.

    >
    > That isn't what he said
    > "I don't want to be dependant on *any* software"
    > the word *any* has a much different meaning than *specific*.


    You omitted the context by not quoting the entire sentence, which
    was:

    > I don't want to use third party photo organising software to organising
    > my photos because I don't want to be dependant on any software.


    The word "such" was strongly implied ("I don't want to be
    dependant on any SUCH software". Who other than rain men or trolls
    wouldn't recognize that what was meant was "third party photo
    organising software" and not "any and all software"? Without the
    use of software of *any* kind, photos saved on a hard disk would be
    lost, inaccessable. Not only would you be unable to organize
    photos, you'd be unable to view them, copy them, delete them, etc.,


    > Perhaps the OP will come back and clarify his post if he didn't mean
    > what he typed


    Perhaps *you* will come back and clarify your post if it was
    written when you weren't thinking very clearly.
    ASAAR, Apr 23, 2007
    #16
  17. Robin

    Robin Guest

    Hello "thehick"

    We seem to be on the same wavelength.

    As you mentioned, in 5 years time the software may not be useable, which is
    my way of thinking too. This is not uncommon and the reason for me
    preferring not to use photo organising software. Also, it is not uncommon
    for a software company to seize trading, so it would not be possible to
    update the software to a newer version, even if you wanted to. Looking even
    further into the future, say 10-20 years time who knows what will happen.
    IMO, a decent way to organise your photos is the way to go, unless you are
    an agency using photos from different people.

    I will look at SyncToy for syncing to an external hard drive. As for your
    suggestion to make an off site back up, this is the reason for me backing up
    to an external hard drive. I plan to back up every 3 months to an external
    hard drive and keep the hard drive off site, because as you mentioned if the
    house caught fire, it would be disastrous. Of course, burglary is another
    thing to consider.

    For your question, I didn't have a problem with crooked scans, although they
    will all need cropping because when scanning the negs, they all have black
    sides and white top and bottom borders. Once I have organised them how I
    want them, and deleted the photos I don't want, I will then go through them
    and crop, adjust exposure, colour saturation, etc. BTW, I plan to keep the
    same aspect ratio for all crops though.


    "thehick" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Apr 22, 4:02 pm, nospam <> wrote:
    >> In article <>, Robin

    > ...
    >> > I have just scanned all my 35mm film, which has spurred me to
    >> > re-evaluate
    >> > the way I store/organise the photos on my hard drive. I don't want to
    >> > use
    >> > third party photo organising software to organising my photos because I
    >> > don't want to be dependant on any software.

    > I agree with that.
    >
    >> > With my digital photos, on the top level I have folders for each year
    >> > (2007,
    >> > 2006, etc). I then have sub-folders that I create for each particular
    >> > occasion, naming it by date first. For example, I create a folder
    >> > called
    >> > '2007.04.22 XYZ Occasion' as a sub folder of '2007'.

    > That'll work perfectly. Exactly what I do.
    >
    > ...
    >> i use 'third party photo organising software' because i want my
    >> computer to make my life easier, not more difficult. for instance, i
    >> can instantly retrieve images based on date taken, location, ...etc

    > So far, I have never had the need to see photos I have taken
    > organized by camera model. Looks important to you but
    > hardly a universal requirement.
    >
    >> the files are still easily accessible on the hard drive and can remain
    >> in whatever folder heirarchy i want, so it is the best of both worlds.

    > Yes it is with the proviso that in 5 years that software may not
    > be usable and then what will you have. If you are just using EXIF
    > then this is available to everybody forever. Including the original
    > poster.
    >
    > Robin, you are doing fine. You made another post that you want to
    > back up to an external hard drive. Better and better. The suggestion
    > that you use SyncToy is good too. It is pretty configurable
    > and works quick enough.
    >
    > The only additional suggestion I would make is that you get 1 more
    > hard drive and make an off-site backup monthly or so depending
    > on the changes you've made. You have an enormous investment
    > in your photos and it would be a shame to lose it in a house fire.
    > Just take the drive to another family member's house.
    >
    > I too have started scanning in my printed pictures. A little problem
    > is that sometimes the pictures are crooked in the scanner
    > and I have to crop to a crooked rectangle. or rotate or something.
    > Do you have this problem? if so, what solution do you have?
    > thanks...thehick
    >
    Robin, Apr 23, 2007
    #17
  18. Robin

    Robin Guest

    Jerry,

    Rumour has it that your mum and dad are brother and sister. Is this true?


    "Jerry" <> wrote in message
    news:462bbca5$...

    >If you don't want to be dependent on software how did you scan your slides?
    >Images taken with digital cameras can't be viewed without software. I
    >suggest you stick to film, and you are posting to the worng group
    Robin, Apr 23, 2007
    #18
  19. Robin

    Robin Guest

    Hello "KenJr"

    You have hit on a point that I was thinking of putting in the original post,
    but deliberately left out.

    I am also considering having top level folders for certain items, such as
    holidays/events, work, house, friends, family, me, objects, nature, misc,
    etc. and then have the sub folders under these.

    Just out of interest, where to you put photos of a group friends and family
    shot, that was a one off shot (not a particular event)?


    "KenJr" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > For me, I like to organize by subject. top level directories are Family,
    > House, Scenic, Events, Work, etc.
    >
    > Then I create subfolders in each of those such as in Family there is
    > Mom&Dad, a folder for each of my brothers and sisters families, one for
    > the pets, etc, with a folder for special occasions such as birthday
    > parties, weddings and so forth which most of the family members attend.
    >
    > I do a lot of my own work around the house so I have folders for the
    > bathroom, kitchen and so on with before and after pictures of the work
    > I've done.
    >
    > Scenic is divided into folders for flowers, wildlife, landscape, etc.
    Robin, Apr 23, 2007
    #19
  20. Robin

    Jerry Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    >
    > Perhaps *you* will come back and clarify your post if it was
    > written when you weren't thinking very clearly.
    >

    I doubt it as the OP seems to be abusive as well as illiterate. I did
    offer him a suggestion on the other thread he posted looking for backup
    software. I didn't actually see his other thread looking for software
    until I'd responded to this one.
    Jerry, Apr 23, 2007
    #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. Walter Mitty

    organising newsgroups folders

    Walter Mitty, May 17, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    349
    Walter Mitty
    May 18, 2004
  2. m8ee

    Organising files

    m8ee, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    445
    slumpy
    Aug 21, 2003
  3. PeteD

    Organising photos from Nikon and Canon?

    PeteD, Sep 12, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    457
  4. john d hamilton

    Finally organising photos in Picassa

    john d hamilton, Sep 19, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    564
    Morton
    Sep 23, 2008
  5. john d hamilton

    Finally organising photos in Picassa

    john d hamilton, Sep 19, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    434
    Morton
    Sep 23, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page