photographing newsprint?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Douglas W. Hoyt, Dec 3, 2003.

  1. I have a friend who as a room full of newspapers with family and historical
    value. He would like to get these into a digital format before they all
    decay. He was wondering what camera to get (I told him something with a
    SHARP lens), but hopefully some of you in the group might know best:

    1) Is buying a digital camera and photographing them the best option
    (certainly quicker than a--very large--scanner)?

    2) What camera would be optimal--or at least priceworthy and perfectly
    adequate--for photographing newspapers (and probably also nice to have
    around for other uses--it would be his first digicam; should it permit you
    to select the level of sharpness; do some cameras have a color bias worth
    avoiding or seeking out)?

    THANKS!
    Douglas W. Hoyt, Dec 3, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Douglas W. Hoyt

    Frank ess Guest

    "Douglas W. Hoyt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have a friend who as a room full of newspapers with family and

    historical
    > value. He would like to get these into a digital format before they all
    > decay. He was wondering what camera to get (I told him something with a
    > SHARP lens), but hopefully some of you in the group might know best:
    >
    > 1) Is buying a digital camera and photographing them the best option
    > (certainly quicker than a--very large--scanner)?
    >
    > 2) What camera would be optimal--or at least priceworthy and perfectly
    > adequate--for photographing newspapers (and probably also nice to have
    > around for other uses--it would be his first digicam; should it permit

    you
    > to select the level of sharpness; do some cameras have a color bias worth
    > avoiding or seeking out)?
    >
    > THANKS!
    >
    >


    Digitizing graphics and texr is a tricky business. As in most processes, the
    steps one takes are determined by source material, available facilities, and
    end use. One of the best ways of gaining an understanding is to visit Wayne
    Fulton's site
    http://www.scantips.com

    If you are determined to preserve every detail of the source, and have
    unlimited funds for recording and storage, no worry, you'll get close to
    what you want. If you are restricted in any of the critical resources,
    you'll need to make compromises. The adjustments you decide on must lead to
    outcomes meeting at least the minimum parameters of your desired result.

    Oproblem is scanning from books. Small, cheap books and magazines are easy
    to scan: pick a page, mash it down on the glass, push the button. Large
    and/or expensive books require other techniques. You could ruin a book by
    mashing it, and you'll never get a full page of a large-format book on an
    ordinary scanning stage. Limited by scanning resources, you'll never get
    that exact copy of a big-expensive book.

    You can, however, get the information from that book into digital form.
    Today's best digital cameras approach the capabilities of scanners,
    pixel-by-pixel-ly speaking. In the olden days when you used a camera, you
    photographed something. Now, you digitize it, just like a scanner. You can
    introduce stable camera and subject platforms, any kind of lighting you
    wish, and within seconds place in your computer an image containing very
    much the same digital information a scanner would render, without mashing or
    otherwise abusing a book, and incorporating the entire page of an "oversize"
    subject.

    To demonstrate the kind of sacrifices you might expect to endure, I stepped
    outside my back door with a fine, big, expensive book ("American Racing -
    Road Racing in the 50s and 60s" by Tom Burnside, Text by Denise McCluggage;
    pages are 10 x 11 inches, way too big for my simple 9 x 11.5 Epson) and a
    two-year-old digital camera (Nikon CoolPix 995, 3.1 megapixels; today's
    similar cameras boast 5 or more megapixels for the same investment).

    I took three pictures in direct sunlight, within about a minute. Downloaded
    to the computer in another three minutes. Five minutes of processing, five
    minutes of uploading, five minutes of caption editing, and there they are:

    A full frame 1536 x 2048 at full jpg quality, 1.8 MB file: First1.jpg
    A cropped 1090 x 1376 same quality, 1.1 MB file: First2.jpg

    Cropped and processed 1537 x 1858 image saved at 30 quality 239 K
    Second1.jpg
    Cropped to 900 x 1147 saved at 30 quality 102 K Second2.jpg

    1417 x 1760 30 quality 428 K Third1.jpg
    900 x 1122 30 quality 227 K Third2.jpg

    You'll be able to compare them with regard to how much detail is available
    ( all the text "information" is legible, so if that is what you are after,
    no problem ). You can adjust the detail lost from photos, even save your
    exposures in "raw" rather than jpg (compressed) format, if the file sizes
    are not a problem for you.

    Any road, scanning is not the only avenue open for preserving flat graphics
    materials. Depends on where you are, your method of transport, and where you
    are going.

    http://www.fototime.com/inv/C2B2012ED7EBF59

    Frank ess
    Frank ess, Dec 3, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Douglas W. Hoyt

    Ray Murphy Guest

    ----------
    In article <>, "Douglas W. Hoyt"
    <> wrote:


    >I have a friend who as a room full of newspapers with family and historical
    >value. He would like to get these into a digital format before they all
    >decay. He was wondering what camera to get (I told him something with a
    >SHARP lens), but hopefully some of you in the group might know best:
    >
    >1) Is buying a digital camera and photographing them the best option
    >(certainly quicker than a--very large--scanner)?
    >
    >2) What camera would be optimal--or at least priceworthy and perfectly
    >adequate--for photographing newspapers (and probably also nice to have
    >around for other uses--it would be his first digicam; should it permit you
    >to select the level of sharpness; do some cameras have a color bias worth
    >avoiding or seeking out)?
    >
    >THANKS!


    RM: I can speak from a lot of experience in photographing newspapers,
    books and virtually all other kinds of of flat images - mostly under 1
    x 1.5 metres, so can throw some light on the subject, but it would be
    a lot easier to help if you could provide extra information like:
    * Size of the newspapers?
    * Do you want just B+W copies - or colour?
    * What resolution do you want (pixels/inch)?
    * Do you want the newspapers quite flat?

    I don't think digital cameras are capable of producing ~reasonable
    quality~ copies of newspaper pages because they don't have enough
    pixels to do the job; but it depends a lot on what quality you are
    looking for.

    There are different ways you could go:
    * A microfilm unit - which is very fast.
    * A Process camera making contone copy negs of any size up to 20 x 24
    inches or larger (for scanning afterwards on either a flatbed or large
    drum scanner). This can yield perfect results if a large enough neg is
    used.
    * Microfilming from a 35mm camera with high-resolution copy film.
    * Photographing with hi-res copy film from a large-format camera such
    as 4 x5 or bigger.
    * Photographing with an antique (bellows) plate or half-plate camera
    with hi-res sheet film.
    * Making your own fixed-size process camera. This is basically a box
    which is big enough to hold your film at one end, with a length which
    is equivalent to a bit more than the focal length of your lens. Lenses
    for such a purpose are very cheap now, but they used to cost an
    absolute fortune).

    In all cases you would need adequate lighting - which is *minimally* 4
    x 500w lamps at about 45 degres at about1 metre, and even then
    lighting can be a bit tricky if you want even coverage.

    You should have the newspapers placed (at the very least) under a
    sheet of 1/4inch plate glass if you are photographing from above, but
    it's much better if you have a thin sheet of foam under the newspaper
    with a black or very dark coloured sheet of paper under the newspaper
    in order to sop show-through from the other side of the page.

    Ideally you should have a vacuum frame to hold the newspaper dead
    flat. These can be bought quite cheaply now that the technology in the
    printing industry has changed.
    These are simply a baseboard with a rubber mat on it which has a
    rubber seal glued around the edge, with glass sitting on top. When the
    air is sucked out from one corner (with a vacuum cleaner or whatever)
    the rubber mat comes up and applies immense pressure to the newspaper
    (somehere about 14 lb per square inch).

    Second hand equipment is probably nowhere near as expensive as one
    might expect, but you would need a room or a shed to store and operate
    it.

    You could of course pay someone else to use professional equipment to
    make your negs, but the whole thing is quite labour intensive and
    could cost a fortune if you wanted fairly good quality.

    The real easy way is to simply give the newspapers to a professional
    who has an industrial strength old drum scanner which holds large
    formats like that - but one again, very expensive. These were
    producing perfect results 20 years ago and nothing has surpassed them
    yet. That's not surprising when you consider they cost as much as a
    few houses to buy :))

    If by chance you *can* get a digital camera which will give you enough
    pixels to form a reasonable image OF THE SMALL TYPE -- say about 3MP,
    you might still need a "copyboard" which flattens the newspapers -
    preferably under vacuum.
    The flash on digital cameras would probably be as good as any
    artificial lighting, but it may not be any good at all if you get a
    lot of reflection in your copyboard glass.

    For consistent results when using a digital camera you would need to
    place it in a fixed position on a very stable base - either overhead
    or horizontally. The best way to refine your position is to rig up
    some sort of "micrometer" ajustment under your camera so you can move
    it a whisker in one direction or the other.
    This could easily be done by using long bolts to move the base -
    allowing you can control the movement by fractions of a millimetre. If
    this is not done you would have to continually align your camera by
    hand and leave a blank border which reduces your maximum image size.
    Naturally the camera base and the "copyboard" must remain in fixed
    positions in relation to each other.

    Perhaps the easiest way to have your question answered, is to ask
    someone to post you a JPEG of a newspaper (laying on the floor) which
    was taken with a 3 MPixel camera

    Ray
    Ray Murphy, Dec 3, 2003
    #3
  4. I agree - the most appealing options are a scanner or microfilm.

    A scanner, even a cheap one, has *vastly* more resolution than a digital
    camera, even a very expensive one. The reason is that a scanner needs only
    one row of pixels, which moves past the material as it is scanned, whereas a
    camera has to have a rectangular array. Thus a scanner with just a few
    thousand pixels can produce images with many, many millions of pixels.

    Let's see...

    To read a newspaper you probably need a resolution of 100 dots per inch
    (that's tolerating some blurring). And the page is, what, maybe 14 x 18
    inches? That works out to about 3 *perfect* megapixels without the
    slightest hint of additional blurring. A 3-megapixel or even 6-megapixel
    camera is probably not going to do that; it's too close to its limits. But
    a scanner is easily 3 to 6 times that sharp.
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 3, 2003
    #4
  5. Douglas W. Hoyt

    Don Stauffer Guest

    If there are images, most scanner drivers include some sort of halftone
    aliasing filters, to remove aliasing. This is a plus for using a print
    scanner to do this. As far as text, seems to me the higher resolution
    of affordable print scanners would be a plus here.

    I have both a digicam and a cheap print scanner. I have had great
    results scanning printed material.

    "Douglas W. Hoyt" wrote:
    >
    > I have a friend who as a room full of newspapers with family and historical
    > value. He would like to get these into a digital format before they all
    > decay. He was wondering what camera to get (I told him something with a
    > SHARP lens), but hopefully some of you in the group might know best:
    >
    > 1) Is buying a digital camera and photographing them the best option
    > (certainly quicker than a--very large--scanner)?
    >
    > 2) What camera would be optimal--or at least priceworthy and perfectly
    > adequate--for photographing newspapers (and probably also nice to have
    > around for other uses--it would be his first digicam; should it permit you
    > to select the level of sharpness; do some cameras have a color bias worth
    > avoiding or seeking out)?
    >
    > THANKS!


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
    Don Stauffer, Dec 3, 2003
    #5
  6. "Douglas W. Hoyt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have a friend who as a room full of newspapers with family and historical
    > value. He would like to get these into a digital format before they all
    > decay. He was wondering what camera to get (I told him something with a
    > SHARP lens), but hopefully some of you in the group might know best:
    >
    > 1) Is buying a digital camera and photographing them the best option
    > (certainly quicker than a--very large--scanner)?
    >
    > 2) What camera would be optimal--or at least priceworthy and perfectly
    > adequate--for photographing newspapers (and probably also nice to have
    > around for other uses--it would be his first digicam; should it permit you
    > to select the level of sharpness; do some cameras have a color bias worth
    > avoiding or seeking out)?

    ....
    Has your friend looked into a scanning/printing service specializing in large formats?
    I believe there is one in Madison Wisconsin USA (used to be called ColorXL,
    but the name may have changed with a change of owners). I have no idea of
    the cost, but if the materials are important, a service would probably give the
    best results.


    --
    Dan (Woj...) dmaster (at) lucent (dot) com

    "These are the days of miracle and wonder / This is the long distance call
    The way the camera follows us in slo-mo / The way we look to us all
    The way we look to a distant constellation / That's dying in a corner of the sky
    These are the days of miracle and wonder / And don't cry baby, don't cry"
    Dan Wojciechowski, Dec 3, 2003
    #6
  7. Douglas W. Hoyt

    Ray Murphy Guest

    ----------
    In article <>, Don Stauffer
    <> wrote:


    [photographing newspapers]

    >If there are images, most scanner drivers include some sort of halftone
    >aliasing filters, to remove aliasing. This is a plus for using a print
    >scanner to do this.


    RM: I hadn't heard about this. Are you saying that scanning can be
    done without producing a moire pattern in halftone pics without making
    the type fuzzy as well?
    I normally do this in Photoshop (without the type of course).

    >As far as text, seems to me the higher resolution
    >of affordable print scanners would be a plus here.


    RM: Yes, if you can get a home scanner big enough to accomodate a
    newspaper page.
    >
    >I have both a digicam and a cheap print scanner. I have had great
    >results scanning printed material.



    Ray
    Ray Murphy, Dec 3, 2003
    #7
  8. Thank you for the terrific responses. I'll write him (he lives in
    Mississippi) and ask about:

    * Size of the newspapers?
    * B+W copies - or colour?
    * What resolution do you want (pixels/inch)?
    * Do you want the newspapers quite flat?

    I think he has a small roomful of these that he would like to scan! Thank
    you for your thoughtful and knowledgeable commentary so far!!!
    Douglas W. Hoyt, Dec 3, 2003
    #8
  9. Douglas W. Hoyt

    Don Stauffer Guest

    Yes. I find it works better to do it while scanning.

    In either case, one must play with some variables, mainly the halftone
    screen frequency, which you generally have to guess at.

    Another tip. Sometimes it helps to make sure sampling frequency and
    halftone frequency have no simple harmonics. Sometimes I use some
    pretty weird sampling intervals, like 330 or 257 samples per inch. This
    only works, though, when your scanner driver allows you to specify an
    exact sampling pitch, rather than only letting you select from a list of
    options.

    Ray Murphy wrote:
    >
    > ----------
    > In article <>, Don Stauffer
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > [photographing newspapers]
    >
    > >If there are images, most scanner drivers include some sort of halftone
    > >aliasing filters, to remove aliasing. This is a plus for using a print
    > >scanner to do this.

    >
    > RM: I hadn't heard about this. Are you saying that scanning can be
    > done without producing a moire pattern in halftone pics without making
    > the type fuzzy as well?
    > I normally do this in Photoshop (without the type of course).
    >
    > >As far as text, seems to me the higher resolution
    > >of affordable print scanners would be a plus here.

    >
    > RM: Yes, if you can get a home scanner big enough to accomodate a
    > newspaper page.
    > >
    > >I have both a digicam and a cheap print scanner. I have had great
    > >results scanning printed material.

    >
    > Ray


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
    Don Stauffer, Dec 4, 2003
    #9
  10. Douglas W. Hoyt

    Ray Murphy Guest

    ----------
    In article <>, Don Stauffer
    <> wrote:
    >
    >Ray Murphy wrote:
    >>
    >> ----------
    >> In article <>, Don Stauffer
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> [photographing newspapers]
    >>
    >> >If there are images, most scanner drivers include some sort of halftone
    >> >aliasing filters, to remove aliasing. This is a plus for using a print
    >> >scanner to do this.

    >>
    >> RM: I hadn't heard about this. Are you saying that scanning can be
    >> done without producing a moire pattern in halftone pics without making
    >> the type fuzzy as well?
    >> I normally do this in Photoshop (without the type of course).
    >>

    [......]

    >Yes. I find it works better to do it while scanning.


    RM: Ah, I can guess what it's doing. It would be (sort of)
    re-screening or scanning on an angle for the whole job - without
    affecting the type,
    >
    >In either case, one must play with some variables, mainly the halftone
    >screen frequency, which you generally have to guess at.


    RM: There's no need to guess because you can get screen gauges to
    measure halftone screen rulings.
    They are usually screen-printed on .007" acetate film and have a
    series of thin black lines radiating out from a narrow circle on one
    side of the gauge. The lines are spaced further and further apart and
    probably cover about 25 degrees.
    The idea is to lay the screen gauge on a halftone and twist it back
    and forth until a moire pattern becomes visible as black shadows at a
    particular point along the lines. When you see it, you just read the
    scrren ruling at that point :))
    They would probably cost under US$20.
    They could also be hand made if anyone was using litho sheet film or
    some other high contrast film if the image was first constructed in a
    graphics program.
    >
    >Another tip. Sometimes it helps to make sure sampling frequency and
    >halftone frequency have no simple harmonics. Sometimes I use some
    >pretty weird sampling intervals, like 330 or 257 samples per inch. This
    >only works, though, when your scanner driver allows you to specify an
    >exact sampling pitch, rather than only letting you select from a list of
    >options.
    >
    >--
    >Don Stauffer in Minnesota


    RM: Thanks for that.

    Ray
    Ray Murphy, Dec 4, 2003
    #10
  11. Douglas W. Hoyt

    Mark Grebner Guest

    > I think he has a small roomful of these that he would like to scan! Thank
    > you for your thoughtful and knowledgeable commentary so far!!!


    There have been a lot of good suggestions made in the comments above,
    but there is a fundamental question you need to answer first: how
    good an image do you need?

    If the situation is there are huge numbers of old newspapers which
    need to be discarded or which are becoming unreadable, and you just
    want to salvage a readable image of the pages, you can settle for much
    lower than professional quality. In other words, the advice from
    professional archivists may be setting the standards too high for you.

    If you can live with readable-but-ugly quality, a 6 megapixel camera
    will take an acceptable image of a standard broadsheet page, even
    without glass, vacuum frames, careful lighting and all the rest. (100
    pixels per linear inch is a pretty good benchmark - below that text
    will be unreadable in patches. 150 pixels per inch does a pretty nice
    job.)

    The reason to consider a low-quality approach is that the whole
    project may become unworkable otherwise, due to limits on money and
    time.

    My firm photographs public records in out-of-the-way courthouses - 2
    million pages so far. People are always making suggestions on how we
    "should" be doing it, but I notice that NOBODY ELSE IS ACTUALLY DOING
    THE SAME WORK. My employees are able to capture between 2000 and 5000
    frames in an 8-hour day, using inexpensive portable equipment set up
    in somebody else's office. I'm making the claim that shooting 2
    million frames at an expense of well under 10 cents per frame gives me
    some authority on this subject.

    Newspapers would present their own challenge - which nobody has
    touched on yet - but you should be able to shoot at least 1000 frames
    in an 8 hour day. Maybe 2000 if you solve the REAL problem: you want
    to shoot the pages in order even though consecutive pages are on
    opposite sides of a sheet of paper or are located across a fold.
    Shooting the pages out of order and then re-collating the images is
    simply unworkable - it's just too time-consuming.

    As you will discover, just opening pages and moving the newspaper
    section so each page is centered in the camera's field takes far more
    time than anything else. What I've done in similar situations is
    build a device that allows a pile to be slid by exactly the width of
    one page, either right or left.

    You shoot page one, then flip the sheet so page 2 is visible - but you
    have to move the stack 14" to the right to return it to the camera's
    field. You shoot page 2, then slide the stack 14" left and shoot page
    3. Flip the sheet and slide the section 14" right . . .

    I've used various types of furniture or drawer glides for the device,
    which is made out of lumber and cardboard. It sounds silly, but if
    you try to move 50,000 pages of newsprint by hand, you'll quickly
    understand the importance of handling the originals efficiently.
    Taking one frame every 15 seconds would be pretty good.
    Mark Grebner, Dec 4, 2003
    #11
  12. Douglas W. Hoyt

    Frank ess Guest

    "Douglas W. Hoyt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Thank you for the terrific responses. I'll write him (he lives in
    > Mississippi) and ask about:
    >
    > * Size of the newspapers?
    > * B+W copies - or colour?
    > * What resolution do you want (pixels/inch)?
    > * Do you want the newspapers quite flat?
    >
    > I think he has a small roomful of these that he would like to scan!

    Thank
    > you for your thoughtful and knowledgeable commentary so far!!!
    >
    >


    Just a few minutes to save others the time, this is what I could do in about
    fifteen minutes:

    Toss a newspaper on the pavement in the sun;
    Snap two 5MP views, filling the frame as best I could,
    Open each in Photo Shop and apply
    crop near edge of paper
    very mild levels and curves
    very mild Lab Color UnSharp Mask
    reduce two to near the limit of legibility (on 1024x screen)
    save for the Web at Photo Shop 30, one at 60
    upload to FotoTime

    Views are of the full page, one at full image size, every word legible,
    1592x2560, file size 526,853K
    http://www.fototime.com/A2AA8FF16F237D8/orig.jpg

    Next at 941x1512, file size 403,536K, legible but blurred
    http://www.fototime.com/4FA0966C52CB4A7/orig.jpg

    Half-page is 894x670, 106,958K, legible but requires multiples
    http://www.fototime.com/3D5373763FB180E/orig.jpg


    What I am saying is, if what you want is a representation of a newspaper
    page, it doesn't take much. If what you want is to archive the information
    on a page, it doesn't take much more than time and storage space. If what
    you want is a perfect replica of a newspaper page, it will take a good deal
    more of those and of specialized equipment.

    If what you want is access to the information on the page, and the flavor of
    the medium, there it is in fifteen minutes. A roomful of pages can be
    accomodated by economies of workflow, and will probably not be a function of
    one-page processing multiplied by number of pages.
    Frank ess, Dec 4, 2003
    #12
  13. Douglas W. Hoyt

    Larry Jaques Guest

    On 4 Dec 2003 14:14:14 -0800, (Mark Grebner) brought
    forth from the murky depths:

    >> I think he has a small roomful of these that he would like to scan! Thank
    >> you for your thoughtful and knowledgeable commentary so far!!!

    >
    >There have been a lot of good suggestions made in the comments above,
    >but there is a fundamental question you need to answer first: how
    >good an image do you need?


    I missed the other conversations but have found that a sheet of
    black paper behind the newspaper makes it scan with a much, much
    higher contrast.


    -----------------------------------------------------------
    --This post conscientiously crafted from 100% Recycled Pixels--
    http://diversify.com Websites: PHP Programming, MySQL databases
    =================================================================
    Larry Jaques, Dec 5, 2003
    #13
  14. Douglas W. Hoyt

    Ray Murphy Guest

    ----------
    In article <>, Larry Jaques
    <jake@di\/ersify.com> wrote:


    >On 4 Dec 2003 14:14:14 -0800, (Mark Grebner) brought
    >forth from the murky depths:
    >
    >>> I think he has a small roomful of these that he would like to scan!

    >Thank
    >>> you for your thoughtful and knowledgeable commentary so far!!!

    >>
    >>There have been a lot of good suggestions made in the comments above,
    >>but there is a fundamental question you need to answer first: how
    >>good an image do you need?

    >
    >I missed the other conversations but have found that a sheet of
    >black paper behind the newspaper makes it scan with a much, much
    >higher contrast.


    RM: And also stops the print from the other side from showing through.

    Ray
    Ray Murphy, Dec 5, 2003
    #14
    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. Jim Polaski

    Re: Photographing Silverware

    Jim Polaski, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    3,889
    Lionel
    Jul 13, 2003
  2. Andy

    Re: Photographing Silverware

    Andy, Jul 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    525
  3. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Photographing Mars

    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Aug 5, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    1,902
    Stephen Dowdy
    Aug 9, 2003
  4. Eigenvector

    photographing something through a chain link fence

    Eigenvector, Aug 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    2,381
    Teemu Mottonen
    Aug 8, 2003
  5. jim evans

    How Do I Scan Newsprint Without Bleedthrough?

    jim evans, Jul 8, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    1,424
    John Turco
    Jul 11, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page