Re: Image Size and Compression.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ray, Jul 30, 2010.

  1. ray

    ray Guest

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:25:37 -0700, bobwilliams wrote:

    > Let's assume I have a 10MP camera
    > My sensor is say, 3650 X 2740 pixels. But say I want to create an image
    > at 1825 x 1370 pixels. How does the camera actually reduce the 5.0MPs to
    > 2.5MPs Does it choose groups of 4 pixels and somehow average them out to
    > groups of 1 pixel each?
    > How does this process differ from compressing the 10MP image by a factor
    > of 4.
    > I know that in one case the image SIZE is reduced (as well as the file
    > size) whereas in the other case, the image SIZE remains the same but the
    > file size is reduced.
    > How exactly does each process affect the appearance of say an 8x10
    > print. Bob Williams


    I would imagine you are talking about JPEG compression here. Suggest you
    experiment a little with your favourite photo manipulation software.
    You'll find that most images can be very highly compressed without any
    noticeable degredation. The same is not true for dropping resolution.
    ray, Jul 30, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On 7/30/2010 9:12 AM, ray wrote:
    > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:25:37 -0700, bobwilliams wrote:
    >
    >> Let's assume I have a 10MP camera
    >> My sensor is say, 3650 X 2740 pixels. But say I want to create an image
    >> at 1825 x 1370 pixels. How does the camera actually reduce the 5.0MPs to
    >> 2.5MPs Does it choose groups of 4 pixels and somehow average them out to
    >> groups of 1 pixel each?
    >> How does this process differ from compressing the 10MP image by a factor
    >> of 4.
    >> I know that in one case the image SIZE is reduced (as well as the file
    >> size) whereas in the other case, the image SIZE remains the same but the
    >> file size is reduced.
    >> How exactly does each process affect the appearance of say an 8x10
    >> print. Bob Williams

    >
    > I would imagine you are talking about JPEG compression here. Suggest you
    > experiment a little with your favourite photo manipulation software.
    > You'll find that most images can be very highly compressed without any
    > noticeable degredation. The same is not true for dropping resolution.


    I'd take a different approach: why try to reduce filesize? Storage is
    incredibly cheap and getting cheaper by the hour. If you are not
    shooting RAW, a terabyte drive will hold more photos than you're likely
    to take in your lifetime on a 10MP camera, and they run around $150.
    You can't go back and re-take your photo in a higher resolution or with
    less compression, but you can always buy more hard drives.

    - --
    - -Ryan McGinnis
    The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
    Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
    Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan McGinnis

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

    iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMUugUAAoJEIzODkDZ7B1bEZ8H/3rWsrx4rVNtfLgWgC3m7KbF
    fRARn+2nwQVpWUxLIg3ijWmAY0wM1dFlQNJEU040uwSKqXLzZj348gTwRYHEANf1
    yAFhfwF2AGY5ir6X1wvhM5b14+tHdm4adqwCoFYH3Jnli9WtQqcVxvhfI8Mbklrv
    xKsu7pR0B5ykLIWKCzr6PCgueMyLWer43ldJnmxd9ykjtIM5yIm0bIwRu1tfbFTd
    RriZ5IQPuDuTE3l/ZPChFNV3ot1iiwglzVxl9BcQo+M6u0lt2GhJlW801iMgQb4H
    qRNFDj0bDhvmkAi9YaeJxSdoLEQgYt9/TzxjwwlV4+KUDyZZp04AZtZF1aubJb0=
    =6sW7
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Ryan McGinnis, Jul 30, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ray

    Dave Cohen Guest

    Ryan McGinnis wrote:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On 7/30/2010 9:12 AM, ray wrote:
    >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:25:37 -0700, bobwilliams wrote:
    >>
    >>> Let's assume I have a 10MP camera
    >>> My sensor is say, 3650 X 2740 pixels. But say I want to create an image
    >>> at 1825 x 1370 pixels. How does the camera actually reduce the 5.0MPs to
    >>> 2.5MPs Does it choose groups of 4 pixels and somehow average them out to
    >>> groups of 1 pixel each?
    >>> How does this process differ from compressing the 10MP image by a factor
    >>> of 4.
    >>> I know that in one case the image SIZE is reduced (as well as the file
    >>> size) whereas in the other case, the image SIZE remains the same but the
    >>> file size is reduced.
    >>> How exactly does each process affect the appearance of say an 8x10
    >>> print. Bob Williams

    >> I would imagine you are talking about JPEG compression here. Suggest you
    >> experiment a little with your favourite photo manipulation software.
    >> You'll find that most images can be very highly compressed without any
    >> noticeable degredation. The same is not true for dropping resolution.

    >
    > I'd take a different approach: why try to reduce filesize? Storage is
    > incredibly cheap and getting cheaper by the hour. If you are not
    > shooting RAW, a terabyte drive will hold more photos than you're likely
    > to take in your lifetime on a 10MP camera, and they run around $150.
    > You can't go back and re-take your photo in a higher resolution or with
    > less compression, but you can always buy more hard drives.
    >
    > - --

    The op beat me to the same question. My concern was not with file size
    but with noise. Canon do use a lower resolution when higher iso is
    selected by them for low light scene settings. I'll just run a bunch of
    test shots including using the noise reduction layer in PhotoPlus (could
    never afford PS).
    Dave Cohen, Jul 30, 2010
    #3
  4. ray

    ray Guest

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:56:21 -0500, Ryan McGinnis wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On 7/30/2010 9:12 AM, ray wrote:
    >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:25:37 -0700, bobwilliams wrote:
    >>
    >>> Let's assume I have a 10MP camera
    >>> My sensor is say, 3650 X 2740 pixels. But say I want to create an
    >>> image at 1825 x 1370 pixels. How does the camera actually reduce the
    >>> 5.0MPs to 2.5MPs Does it choose groups of 4 pixels and somehow average
    >>> them out to groups of 1 pixel each?
    >>> How does this process differ from compressing the 10MP image by a
    >>> factor of 4.
    >>> I know that in one case the image SIZE is reduced (as well as the file
    >>> size) whereas in the other case, the image SIZE remains the same but
    >>> the file size is reduced.
    >>> How exactly does each process affect the appearance of say an 8x10
    >>> print. Bob Williams

    >>
    >> I would imagine you are talking about JPEG compression here. Suggest
    >> you experiment a little with your favourite photo manipulation
    >> software. You'll find that most images can be very highly compressed
    >> without any noticeable degredation. The same is not true for dropping
    >> resolution.

    >
    > I'd take a different approach: why try to reduce filesize? Storage is
    > incredibly cheap and getting cheaper by the hour. If you are not
    > shooting RAW, a terabyte drive will hold more photos than you're likely
    > to take in your lifetime on a 10MP camera, and they run around $150. You
    > can't go back and re-take your photo in a higher resolution or with less
    > compression, but you can always buy more hard drives.


    I'm not arguing about the cost of storage - I'm answering a question.
    There could be any number of reasons to concern oneself with file size -
    for one, when you're doing web pages. Huge files can take a long time to
    download even with broadband connection - and not EVERYONE has high speed
    connections.


    >
    > - --
    > - -Ryan McGinnis
    > The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com Vortex-2 image
    > licensing at http://vortex-2.com Getty:
    > http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan McGinnis
    >
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
    > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
    >
    > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMUugUAAoJEIzODkDZ7B1bEZ8H/3rWsrx4rVNtfLgWgC3m7KbF
    > fRARn+2nwQVpWUxLIg3ijWmAY0wM1dFlQNJEU040uwSKqXLzZj348gTwRYHEANf1
    > yAFhfwF2AGY5ir6X1wvhM5b14+tHdm4adqwCoFYH3Jnli9WtQqcVxvhfI8Mbklrv
    > xKsu7pR0B5ykLIWKCzr6PCgueMyLWer43ldJnmxd9ykjtIM5yIm0bIwRu1tfbFTd
    > RriZ5IQPuDuTE3l/ZPChFNV3ot1iiwglzVxl9BcQo+M6u0lt2GhJlW801iMgQb4H
    > qRNFDj0bDhvmkAi9YaeJxSdoLEQgYt9/TzxjwwlV4+KUDyZZp04AZtZF1aubJb0= =6sW7
    > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    ray, Jul 30, 2010
    #4
  5. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On 7/30/2010 12:50 PM, ray wrote:

    >> I'm not arguing about the cost of storage - I'm answering a question.
    >> There could be any number of reasons to concern oneself with file size -
    >> for one, when you're doing web pages. Huge files can take a long time to
    >> download even with broadband connection - and not EVERYONE has high speed
    >> connections.


    That's true -- though I guess I just assumed that the easiest method was
    to take full res photos and downsample them with software. But it's
    true that not all users will ever need the high-res shots for any
    reason. This might come into play with some of those wireless shooting
    setups, too, where bandwidth is at a premium.

    - --
    - -Ryan McGinnis
    The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
    Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
    Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan McGinnis

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

    iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMUxHDAAoJEIzODkDZ7B1bAd0IAJLbH+GI9bKpHvdispIW8ofZ
    bmx4E6RJIfikYkJmuiFFW0d9bOOc/4vOzkc0m2ZL43/Vsm/AtvMs673vpq7aoO+R
    9mUZeb6BC6DaDCHKLkNZ3oFPKmYb6DOsQFz5ZeVUgkpF8+y9aVYDds7CWJh6NOJM
    7kjJRQyRwOfRohgjZZFBTaLZSDuprq81CSxJPatEJj2OrjR4qJCqXNoOWaKu96S+
    L4rCbkicH16c6yDHrer0DxCoEbkv+/TcLZE2eXAzNADAje842sfcHrW2A/YgqQQB
    WkC/KqjpD9xDtT85PcXH7+nIjD5M0v/cCE7ofxff5Ba+pfFF9H+mzo1JfmaOfF8=
    =IBmz
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Ryan McGinnis, Jul 30, 2010
    #5
  6. ray

    Peter Guest

    "Dave Cohen" <> wrote in message
    news:i2uvmg$dn3$-september.org...

    > The op beat me to the same question. My concern was not with file size but
    > with noise. Canon do use a lower resolution when higher iso is selected by
    > them for low light scene settings. I'll just run a bunch of test shots
    > including using the noise reduction layer in PhotoPlus (could never afford
    > PS).



    Try Corel PaintShop Photo Pro. Corel sells it for $59.9. It is excellent
    value and does not have a large learning curve.
    In the interests of full disclosure, I am a Corel partner, but only for
    WordPerfect.

    --
    Peter
    Peter, Jul 30, 2010
    #6
  7. "bobwilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > That is what I have noticed too. I was just wondering how such good
    > quality was retained after losing so much image information either by
    > compression or image size reduction.
    > Bob


    By matching the compression to both the source and the eye/brain
    characteristics - i.e. limiting the amount of detail where the eye can't
    see it. JPEG is generally very well designed for its intended use.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 30, 2010
    #7
  8. ray

    Peter Guest

    "bobwilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > ray wrote:


    >> I would imagine you are talking about JPEG compression here. Suggest you
    >> experiment a little with your favourite photo manipulation software.
    >> You'll find that most images can be very highly compressed without any
    >> noticeable degredation. The same is not true for dropping resolution.

    > That is what I have noticed too. I was just wondering how such good
    > quality was retained after losing so much image information either by
    > compression or image size reduction.


    It depends on the image and viewing method.
    As a general rule: (Yes there may be some exceptions, depending on the
    particular image.)
    If you are talking about digital viewing, you may not even notice the
    degradation. If set up for magazine printing, maybe there would be some
    noticeable degradation. For photo quality ink jet printing depends on the
    size. the larger the print, the more you will notice the degradation.

    IOW there is no one definitive answer that fits all cases.
    --
    Peter
    Peter, Jul 30, 2010
    #8
  9. Ryan McGinnis <> wrote:

    > I'd take a different approach: why try to reduce filesize? Storage is
    > incredibly cheap and getting cheaper by the hour. If you are not
    > shooting RAW, a terabyte drive will hold more photos than you're likely
    > to take in your lifetime on a 10MP camera, and they run around $150.


    A proper backup concept will cost much more than $150.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 31, 2010
    #9
  10. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On 7/31/2010 3:42 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > Ryan McGinnis <> wrote:
    >
    >> I'd take a different approach: why try to reduce filesize? Storage is
    >> incredibly cheap and getting cheaper by the hour. If you are not
    >> shooting RAW, a terabyte drive will hold more photos than you're likely
    >> to take in your lifetime on a 10MP camera, and they run around $150.

    >
    > A proper backup concept will cost much more than $150.


    Depends how you run it. I go with one primary drive and one secondary
    drive for temp backups of new stuff. Every month or so I archive the
    new stuff to two sets of DVDs, delete it off of the secondary drive, and
    place one set of DVDs in a bank vault. DVDs are pretty cheap.


    - --
    - -Ryan McGinnis
    The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
    Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
    Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan McGinnis

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

    iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMVLZNAAoJEIzODkDZ7B1bWyAIAJM63rnRUZceKrZ2sfhmI5dP
    RIacFAA8RS7czKP0PB/JfozVfvkgDvyHyPBwcLZOVjc9LOVp06NejN9Cq3J5rDS6
    tIXGEQtinHL6xbeXnvcyq7SmCLkG2pBJxNEvFdHtxGI6J/ya0Rl/8krmd9wllAF5
    NYNZqPX9jRA4W5L3BfoUMXsXA+PNvhAAX5Yszbu5K8nKbldZ8KcOIG8W0AGLlTOD
    7HgQuN9azuDHrjqjXbbb9/bg8CHQbZLUnmojJNV6QfxCD7Q5tETNJbH4ORRor9/e
    /WvyhJ7UrL0J1wpcO2qTCGoJVG1LzjCwGXsW9tevEri6QF3tXTBOrXROsv0n5S8=
    =jEdx
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Ryan McGinnis, Aug 1, 2010
    #10
  11. ray

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 01/08/2010 01:48, Ryan McGinnis wrote:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On 7/31/2010 3:42 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> Ryan McGinnis<> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'd take a different approach: why try to reduce filesize? Storage is
    >>> incredibly cheap and getting cheaper by the hour. If you are not
    >>> shooting RAW, a terabyte drive will hold more photos than you're likely
    >>> to take in your lifetime on a 10MP camera, and they run around $150.

    >>
    >> A proper backup concept will cost much more than $150.

    >
    > Depends how you run it. I go with one primary drive and one secondary
    > drive for temp backups of new stuff. Every month or so I archive the
    > new stuff to two sets of DVDs, delete it off of the secondary drive, and
    > place one set of DVDs in a bank vault. DVDs are pretty cheap.


    But not very reliable. Ever tried to read back your oldest ones?

    --
    Bertrand
    Ofnuts, Aug 1, 2010
    #11
  12. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On 7/31/2010 7:13 PM, Ofnuts wrote:

    >> Depends how you run it. I go with one primary drive and one secondary
    >> drive for temp backups of new stuff. Every month or so I archive the
    >> new stuff to two sets of DVDs, delete it off of the secondary drive, and
    >> place one set of DVDs in a bank vault. DVDs are pretty cheap.

    >
    > But not very reliable. Ever tried to read back your oldest ones?


    By the time they are no longer readable (I figure 7 to 10 years from
    burn date) it will be time to shift to a new format. Digital storage is
    not like film; you don't store it in one form for the entire lifetime of
    the image. CDs move to DVDs, DVDs probably move to Blu-Ray, perhaps one
    day it all moves into the cloud (I also have all toned final JPG files
    stored in the cloud) -- who know what the future holds. But if floppy
    disks and old tape drives teach you anything, it's that you're going to
    have to update storage medium with time.

    - --
    - -Ryan McGinnis
    The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
    Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
    Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan McGinnis

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

    iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMVO8MAAoJEIzODkDZ7B1bIfYH/2YA/qH1/oE7QGBEdVsUYcqj
    6eYIzKFY5X0WL9d+QcyIp+JQ2wiYUM9RdmiSrumyW1DGyKIBdJ0rUEjNGQHIn95f
    IhJJauxbjUnwbfrlmULl5CfC5JuUspj1h53JS788QVje8ih9I3TmhrLcilN2g/B5
    qRPA053rLopzhhCmnjwklkzdecYPHiHHMWs16PK38ewnKUcTI2fkhfXqXo695Kfi
    eAKhi+mudI8luxh7e+srjgfHP1HUqTbOjK2DsfS7A1D1x8RHkIqDNFhuC/X9N1HP
    KYP8PYmzChBAFnhroaLYBzWh+gOQTgi0iUbyvAUFev7VHtA5b8dCyNWZhdesu/o=
    =eks0
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Ryan McGinnis, Aug 1, 2010
    #12
  13. ray

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 01/08/2010 05:50, Ryan McGinnis wrote:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On 7/31/2010 7:13 PM, Ofnuts wrote:
    >
    >>> Depends how you run it. I go with one primary drive and one secondary
    >>> drive for temp backups of new stuff. Every month or so I archive the
    >>> new stuff to two sets of DVDs, delete it off of the secondary drive, and
    >>> place one set of DVDs in a bank vault. DVDs are pretty cheap.

    >>
    >> But not very reliable. Ever tried to read back your oldest ones?

    >
    > By the time they are no longer readable (I figure 7 to 10 years from
    > burn date) it will be time to shift to a new format. Digital storage is
    > not like film; you don't store it in one form for the entire lifetime of
    > the image. CDs move to DVDs, DVDs probably move to Blu-Ray, perhaps one
    > day it all moves into the cloud (I also have all toned final JPG files
    > stored in the cloud) -- who know what the future holds. But if floppy
    > disks and old tape drives teach you anything, it's that you're going to
    > have to update storage medium with time.


    And format... I had some old Photo-CDs I converted to TIFF because
    finding PCD-Capable software is getting difficult. And this is also how
    I found that some of my CD had errors (fortunately, on files I had
    elsewhere).

    --
    Bertrand
    Ofnuts, Aug 1, 2010
    #13
  14. Ryan McGinnis <> wrote:
    > On 7/31/2010 3:42 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> Ryan McGinnis <> wrote:


    >>> incredibly cheap and getting cheaper by the hour. If you are not
    >>> shooting RAW, a terabyte drive will hold more photos than you're likely
    >>> to take in your lifetime on a 10MP camera, and they run around $150.


    >> A proper backup concept will cost much more than $150.


    > Depends how you run it.


    Well, there's secure and there is cheap, choose one and the
    opposite of the other.

    > I go with one primary drive and one secondary
    > drive for temp backups of new stuff. Every month or so I archive the
    > new stuff to two sets of DVDs, delete it off of the secondary drive, and
    > place one set of DVDs in a bank vault. DVDs are pretty cheap.


    I've seen enough burned DVDs to only trust them when read back,
    compared with the original, checked for reading problems (minimum:
    reading speed graph), and backed with dvdisaster[1]. And then I
    don't trust them very far --- a yearly check might well be needed
    for long term storage.

    So you'd spend much time handling DVDs which has also costs,
    in time, if not in dollars.

    -Wolfgang

    [1] http://dvdisaster.net/en/
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 3, 2010
    #14
  15. ray

    John Turco Guest

    Ryan McGinnis wrote:
    >
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On 7/31/2010 7:13 PM, Ofnuts wrote:
    >
    > >> Depends how you run it. I go with one primary drive and one secondary
    > >> drive for temp backups of new stuff. Every month or so I archive the
    > >> new stuff to two sets of DVDs, delete it off of the secondary drive, and
    > >> place one set of DVDs in a bank vault. DVDs are pretty cheap.

    > >
    > > But not very reliable. Ever tried to read back your oldest ones?

    >
    > By the time they are no longer readable (I figure 7 to 10 years from
    > burn date) it will be time to shift to a new format. Digital storage is
    > not like film; you don't store it in one form for the entire lifetime of
    > the image. CDs move to DVDs, DVDs probably move to Blu-Ray, perhaps one
    > day it all moves into the cloud (I also have all toned final JPG files
    > stored in the cloud) -- who know what the future holds. But if floppy
    > disks and old tape drives teach you anything, it's that you're going to
    > have to update storage medium with time.



    For archival purposes, DVD-RAM would be best. It's more expensive and
    less compatible, than other DVD formats, but...it's the most reliable,
    also.

    (DVD-RAM is optimized for data storage.)

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Aug 16, 2010
    #15
    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. Desmond
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    867
    Bob D.
    Sep 27, 2003
  2. Renee
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    335
    Dave Martindale
    Jul 18, 2004
  3. john chapman

    Best Image -- Image Size vs Compression

    john chapman, Aug 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    705
    john chapman
    Aug 9, 2004
  4. Martin Brown

    Re: Image Size and Compression.

    Martin Brown, Jul 30, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    433
    Robert Coe
    Aug 1, 2010
  5. Andrew Reilly

    Re: Image Size vs Compression.

    Andrew Reilly, Mar 28, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    208
    Andrew Reilly
    Mar 28, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page