Re: PDN story on photo agency retouching departments

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Eric Gill, Jul 12, 2003.

  1. Eric Gill

    Eric Gill Guest

    (Adrian) wrote in
    news::

    > The interesting thing about all these photo agency's retouching
    > department is that they ALL use Macs for their work. I'm not making
    > any judgemental statements on this, just stating facts.


    Quark Xpress has between 80%-90% of the market, too, despite competition
    from InDesign. Stasis is the name of the game in the industry, despite QXP
    having competition that is undeniably superior...and mucho cheaper. The Mac
    v.s. PC competition isn't as clear cut.

    Hell, an even better example is how many Quark users are still being bitten
    by a bug in a popular free plugin (XTension), depite the fact the bug was
    corrected by a revision *in 1992*.
    Eric Gill, Jul 12, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Eric Gill

    Hecate Guest

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 15:15:58 GMT, Eric Gill <>
    wrote:

    > (Adrian) wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> The interesting thing about all these photo agency's retouching
    >> department is that they ALL use Macs for their work. I'm not making
    >> any judgemental statements on this, just stating facts.

    >
    >Quark Xpress has between 80%-90% of the market, too, despite competition
    >from InDesign. Stasis is the name of the game in the industry, despite QXP
    >having competition that is undeniably superior...and mucho cheaper. The Mac
    >v.s. PC competition isn't as clear cut.
    >
    >Hell, an even better example is how many Quark users are still being bitten
    >by a bug in a popular free plugin (XTension), depite the fact the bug was
    >corrected by a revision *in 1992*.


    LOL! I've always seen Quark as bug factory anyway. ;-) And that's
    apart from their support desks who, frankly, need support ;-)

    And I notice that all those companies mentioned were American. Inertia
    obviously works for longer in the US than Europe ;-)

    --

    Hecate
    (Fried computers a specialty)
    Hecate, Jul 13, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Eric Gill

    Eric Gill Guest

    Hecate <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 15:15:58 GMT, Eric Gill <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> (Adrian) wrote in
    >>news::
    >>
    >>> The interesting thing about all these photo agency's retouching
    >>> department is that they ALL use Macs for their work. I'm not making
    >>> any judgemental statements on this, just stating facts.

    >>
    >>Quark Xpress has between 80%-90% of the market, too, despite
    >>competition from InDesign. Stasis is the name of the game in the
    >>industry, despite QXP having competition that is undeniably
    >>superior...and mucho cheaper. The Mac v.s. PC competition isn't as
    >>clear cut.
    >>
    >>Hell, an even better example is how many Quark users are still being
    >>bitten by a bug in a popular free plugin (XTension), depite the fact
    >>the bug was corrected by a revision *in 1992*.

    >
    > LOL! I've always seen Quark as bug factory anyway. ;-)


    <shrug> It was always better than it's competition (until Indy) as a
    general layout program, especially in the bug department.

    But, in all seriousness, who the hell doesn't update their software in
    more than a *decade*? Especially when it's FREE?!?

    > And that's
    > apart from their support desks who, frankly, need support ;-)


    Meds. They needs meds. Tranquilizers and thorazine, especially Fred
    Ibrahimi, one of the most hostile, arrogant jerks in the industry.

    > And I notice that all those companies mentioned were American. Inertia
    > obviously works for longer in the US than Europe ;-)


    Well, yes and no. 'Way back when the PC really wasn't suited to graphics
    work, the Mac had competition from two other 68000 based machines, which
    were lots more popular in Europe than in the U.S. By the time they were a
    non-factor, the PC was a much better contender in the field.
    Eric Gill, Jul 13, 2003
    #3
  4. Eric Gill

    Fred Doyle Guest

    "edjh" <> wrot
    > It may be that the Windows version of
    > Quark is buggier than the Mac version. I have heard people say that...


    I don't use a Mac, but I work where Quark is used on many Windows machines.
    It does tend to send Windows to a blue screen of death now and then. Part of
    the problem is that parts of Quark Win is still based on a Windows 3.11
    technology. It relies on the win.ini file for managing soft fonts with
    printers and this seems to be where it has the most problems. Quark 5 can
    also be slow when using files stored on network drives. I was told that this
    is because Quark does some copy protection checking over a network, but
    don't know that for certain. I know that prior versions of Quark did use
    network protocols to check to see if other installations of the same license
    are running, but that was many years ago.

    I understand Quark 6 has been rewritten to use the registry to manage fonts
    and I am hoping that this may solve some of the problems. We also use
    InDesign to some degree, but don't find many of the printers in our area
    offering the same level of support for that program. I suppose that is all
    part of the "inertia" mentioned in prior posts.

    --
    Fred Doyle
    www.leafpublishing.com


    "edjh" <> wrote in message
    news:91eQa.13983$2.webusenet.com...
    > Hecate wrote:
    > > On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 15:15:58 GMT, Eric Gill <>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >> (Adrian) wrote in
    > >>news::
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>The interesting thing about all these photo agency's retouching
    > >>>department is that they ALL use Macs for their work. I'm not making
    > >>>any judgemental statements on this, just stating facts.
    > >>
    > >>Quark Xpress has between 80%-90% of the market, too, despite competition

    > >
    > >>from InDesign. Stasis is the name of the game in the industry, despite

    QXP
    > >
    > >>having competition that is undeniably superior...and mucho cheaper. The

    Mac
    > >>v.s. PC competition isn't as clear cut.
    > >>
    > >>Hell, an even better example is how many Quark users are still being

    bitten
    > >>by a bug in a popular free plugin (XTension), depite the fact the bug

    was
    > >>corrected by a revision *in 1992*.

    > >
    > >
    > > LOL! I've always seen Quark as bug factory anyway. ;-) And that's
    > > apart from their support desks who, frankly, need support ;-)
    > >
    > > And I notice that all those companies mentioned were American. Inertia
    > > obviously works for longer in the US than Europe ;-)
    > >
    > > --
    > >
    > > Hecate
    > > (Fried computers a specialty)

    >
    > I don't know if "inertia" is the right term. I don't see any compelling
    > reason to switch from Mac to PC in publishing or graphics and I can see
    > some drawbacks in doing so. I can work with either platform but I much
    > prefer Mac. I know several designers who would be very depressed if
    > forced to give up their Macs.
    >
    > As for Quark, I use Quark 4 every day and it doesn't appear to be
    > particularly bug-prone to me. I can't think of one major bug that
    > plagues us. It does have some aggravating "features" it's true, but
    > nothing crippling. InDesign might be better; I think "undeniably
    > superior" is overstating it a bit. It may be that the Windows version of
    > Quark is buggier than the Mac version. I have heard people say that...
    > --
    > Comic book sketches and artwork:
    > http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
    >
    >
    Fred Doyle, Jul 13, 2003
    #4
  5. Eric Gill

    edjh Guest

    Eric Gill wrote:

    >>I don't know if "inertia" is the right term.

    >
    >
    > I believe it's right on. Until Quark killed their forums when they released
    > QXP 6 (I presume they were tired of their users waxing eloquent on how
    > wonderful InDesign is) there were *still* users complaining of the bug in
    > PasteboardXT. The 1991 version. As I noted above.
    >
    > I've got plenty more examples. Prepress houses. Magazines. Major ad
    > agencies uses QXP 3.3. Illustrator 7, 604e based Powermacs. Pagemaker.
    >
    >
    >>I don't see any
    >>compelling reason to switch from Mac to PC in publishing or graphics
    >>and I can see some drawbacks in doing so. I can work with either
    >>platform but I much prefer Mac. I know several designers who would be
    >>very depressed if forced to give up their Macs.

    >
    >
    > And I would be depressed to give up a fast, cheaply and easily upgradeable
    > platform if there were actually some real drawbacks in using a PC.
    >
    > The G5 and Panther may change that. We'll see once they arrive.


    I'm not asking anyone to give up Windows if that's what they use. I am
    just saying that there don't seem to be any compelling reasons to didtch
    Mac for Windows. We seem not to have any problems upgrading our Macs.

    >
    >
    >>As for Quark, I use Quark 4 every day and it doesn't appear to be
    >>particularly bug-prone to me. I can't think of one major bug that
    >>plagues us.

    >
    >
    > "Cannot find volume" on save.


    Never get that.
    >
    >
    >>It does have some aggravating "features" it's true, but
    >>nothing crippling. InDesign might be better; I think "undeniably
    >>superior" is overstating it a bit.

    >
    >
    > I think you should try using it before you say that. Indy 2.x's features
    > read - and work -like my wish list for what QXP 5 should have been.
    > Conversely, I don't feel QXP 5 or 6 were serious attempts to address real
    > users' needs aside from making 6 OSX compatible - 2 years after the
    > competition.
    >
    > Take a look here:
    >
    > http://users2.ev1.net/~nightskycreative/indy-screenshot.jpg
    >
    > This is a fluff piece, really, but it shows off some of Indy's
    > capabilities. For example, "The Goddess" has two types of shadows and a
    > gradient applied but is still live, editable type and moreover can be moved
    > anywhere on the page without having to worry about the shadows.
    >
    > The Accord headline is an Acrobat file from photoshop, with vector
    > information intact.
    >
    > The statuette is a PSD file with transparency instead of a clipping path.
    >
    > The page full of palettes from my second monitor also gives you some idea
    > of the range of options available, though many, such as universally
    > customizeable keyboard shortcuts, automatic hanging indents and the multi-
    > line composer, aren't as obvious. Nor is the fact that the Acrobat export
    > is three or four times faster than Quark + Distiller.
    >
    >
    >>It may be that the Windows version
    >>of Quark is buggier than the Mac version. I have heard people say
    >>that...

    >
    >
    > No, the opposite is true, at least in 4.x. No wandering guides issue, no
    > "Cannot find volume" on save, no screen redraw corruption, no corrupted
    > preferences, for example.


    I have used ID a little and I agree it's nice. I have not encountered
    the bugs you mention in Quark 4 and I've been using it for years. Maybe
    we just have good tech people where I work.

    Comic book sketches and artwork:
    http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
    edjh, Jul 13, 2003
    #5
  6. Eric Gill

    edjh Guest


    >
    > "Cannot find volume" on save.


    You know, now that I think back on it I do remember this issue from
    years ago when Quark 4 was first released. But it was fixed with a patch
    or update. Never see it now. Do you have the latest updates? Do you have
    that Enhanced Preview extension enabled? I seem to remember that causing
    some problem as well.

    --
    Comic book sketches and artwork:
    http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
    edjh, Jul 13, 2003
    #6
  7. Eric Gill

    Fred Doyle Guest

    "Eric Gill" <> wrote

    > Fred, I think you're blaming QXP for a Win95/old ATM issue. Your life
    > would probably be much simpler if you moved to Win2K/XP and ditched ATM
    > altogether.
    >

    We have similar problems under XP (we went from 98 to XP so I don't know
    about win2K). If you remove a soft font from a printer listing in the
    win.ini file, it does not download to a printer when using Quark (only) even
    under XP, so Quark's underlying technology still relies on a Win 3.11 legacy
    system. The win.ini hasn't been needed by Windows since Win95. You could be
    right about it being an ongoing win/atm issues, but the problems continue to
    show up under XP even tho' we have dumped ATM under XP (of course) and the
    issues seem to be isolated to Quark as a program.

    > Quark 5 is an atrocity on both platforms. For example, they broke some of
    > the linking features, and updating links is mucho slower.


    Personally, I wouldn't call Quark 5 an atrocity, just a buggy program under
    Windows, and an unnecessary upgrade that accomplished very little. (I can't
    speak for Macs). I'm not sure what you mean by the broken linking features,
    please elaborate.

    > QXP has always been slow, both platforms, working over a network


    Again, I can't speak for the Mac platform, but that's too true on the PC
    side. It forces us to keep all files locally when I'd much rather not.

    > Quark does no font management at all but rather relies on the OS or OS

    patches like ATM.

    Management is be the wrong word for what I am describing, I suppose. I'm not
    aware of any graphics program that "manages" fonts, per se. Quark, and only
    Quark as far as I know, still uses the win.ini file to deal, in some way,
    with downloaded PS fonts to a PS printer. Try taking a font out of the
    printer listing for downloaded fonts in the win.ini file. You'll see what I
    mean. The font will print out of any program but Quark, at least by my
    experience. If you have any information that can work around this, please
    let me know. I'll buy you the drink of your choice.

    >That's what Acrobat is all about. And making submissions much easier with
    >single files that you can apply light amounts of compression.


    We do use Acrobat when it seems possible. The problem with that for my
    situation is we are all too often making changes up to the last minute, even
    after checking and approving blues. It's not my choice but the reality I
    deal with. (Things like finding out a kid is graduating and must be added to
    a commencement program, or tuition and fee changes that happen after a piece
    is at the printers.) With few exceptions our printers don't know how or
    won't make simple edits in Acrobat files, so on many pieces we prefer to
    send collected Quark files. This has helped us meet deadlines more than
    once. Again, not my preferred way of working but it is my reality.

    --
    Fred Doyle
    www.leafpublishing.com


    "Eric Gill" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns93B77BBC54B8Eericvgillyahoocom@24.28.95.190...
    > "Fred Doyle" <> wrote in
    > news:I8fQa.4455$G%:
    >
    > > "edjh" <> wrot
    > >> It may be that the Windows version of
    > >> Quark is buggier than the Mac version. I have heard people say
    > >> that...

    > >
    > > I don't use a Mac, but I work where Quark is used on many Windows
    > > machines. It does tend to send Windows to a blue screen of death now
    > > and then. Part of the problem is that parts of Quark Win is still
    > > based on a Windows 3.11 technology. It relies on the win.ini file for
    > > managing soft fonts with printers and this seems to be where it has
    > > the most problems.

    >
    > Fred, I think you're blaming QXP for a Win95/old ATM issue. Your life
    > would probably be much simpler if you moved to Win2K/XP and ditched ATM
    > altogether.
    >
    > > Quark 5 can also be slow when using files stored on
    > > network drives.

    >
    > Quark 5 is an atrocity on both platforms. For example, they broke some of
    > the linking features, and updating links is mucho slower.
    >
    > However, QXP has always been slow, both platforms, working over a
    > network.
    >
    > > I was told that this is because Quark does some copy
    > > protection checking over a network, but don't know that for certain. I
    > > know that prior versions of Quark did use network protocols to check
    > > to see if other installations of the same license are running, but
    > > that was many years ago.

    >
    > Still does. Tim Gill, the creative genius behind QXP, is long gone and
    > Fred Ibrahimi is more paranoid than ever.
    >
    > > I understand Quark 6 has been rewritten to use the registry to manage
    > > fonts

    >
    > Quark does no font management at all but rather relies on the OS or OS
    > patches like ATM.
    >
    > > and I am hoping that this may solve some of the problems. We
    > > also use InDesign to some degree, but don't find many of the printers
    > > in our area offering the same level of support for that program.

    >
    > That's what Acrobat is all about. And making submissions much easier with
    > single files that you can apply light amounts of compression.
    >
    > > I
    > > suppose that is all part of the "inertia" mentioned in prior posts.

    >
    > Undoutedly. A lot of prepress shops still drop Acrobat files into Quark
    > to output, because they understand how to output from QXP.
    Fred Doyle, Jul 13, 2003
    #7
  8. Eric Gill

    Eric Gill Guest

    "Fred Doyle" <> wrote in
    news:_7hQa.4471$G%:

    > "Eric Gill" <> wrote
    >
    >> Fred, I think you're blaming QXP for a Win95/old ATM issue. Your life
    >> would probably be much simpler if you moved to Win2K/XP and ditched
    >> ATM altogether.
    >>

    > We have similar problems under XP (we went from 98 to XP so I don't
    > know about win2K). If you remove a soft font from a printer listing in
    > the win.ini file, it does not download to a printer when using Quark
    > (only) even under XP, so Quark's underlying technology still relies on
    > a Win 3.11 legacy system. The win.ini hasn't been needed by Windows
    > since Win95. You could be right about it being an ongoing win/atm
    > issues, but the problems continue to show up under XP even tho' we
    > have dumped ATM under XP (of course) and the issues seem to be
    > isolated to Quark as a program.


    Fred, my win.ini is 828 *bytes* in size, all, AFAICT, for legacy 16-bit
    apps. I have about 800 fonts installed at this time, and still use QXP
    4.11 for all my magazine contracts - a fair amount of work.

    I may be misremembering the actual issue. I seem to recall older versions
    of the Postscript printer driver writing those entries.

    >> Quark 5 is an atrocity on both platforms. For example, they broke
    >> some of the linking features, and updating links is mucho slower.

    >
    > Personally, I wouldn't call Quark 5 an atrocity, just a buggy program
    > under Windows, and an unnecessary upgrade that accomplished very
    > little.


    ....and broke compatibility with most XTensions, meaning the upgrade cost
    for anyone who relies on any significant number of them is quite
    high...just to maintain the feature set you are used to.

    > (I can't speak for Macs).


    Same comments apply, plus STILL not being OSX native.

    > I'm not sure what you mean by the
    > broken linking features, please elaborate.


    Drop a Quark file into a directory full of the graphics needed for a
    publication and it re-links anything that is missing. QXP 5 does not do
    so reliably.

    <snip>

    >> Quark does no font management at all but rather relies on the OS or
    >> OS

    > patches like ATM.
    >
    > Management is be the wrong word for what I am describing, I suppose.
    > I'm not aware of any graphics program that "manages" fonts, per se.
    > Quark, and only Quark as far as I know, still uses the win.ini file to
    > deal, in some way, with downloaded PS fonts to a PS printer. Try
    > taking a font out of the printer listing for downloaded fonts in the
    > win.ini file.


    I have *none at all*. And no printer listing, either.

    I'd be happy to post the entirety of the file if you like. It's not
    large.

    > You'll see what I mean. The font will print out of any
    > program but Quark, at least by my experience. If you have any
    > information that can work around this, please let me know. I'll buy
    > you the drink of your choice.


    Scotch is nice, but Guinness will work just fine. Perhaps we should take
    this to e-mail.

    >>That's what Acrobat is all about. And making submissions much easier
    >>with single files that you can apply light amounts of compression.

    >
    > We do use Acrobat when it seems possible. The problem with that for my
    > situation is we are all too often making changes up to the last
    > minute, even after checking and approving blues. It's not my choice
    > but the reality I deal with. (Things like finding out a kid is
    > graduating and must be added to a commencement program, or tuition and
    > fee changes that happen after a piece is at the printers.) With few
    > exceptions our printers don't know how or won't make simple edits in
    > Acrobat files, so on many pieces we prefer to send collected Quark
    > files. This has helped us meet deadlines more than once. Again, not my
    > preferred way of working but it is my reality.


    I have similar issues on occasion. I insist the printer be able to accept
    files via the net, and send a patched page (or however much has changed).
    I find this saves more time and hassle than I'd ever imagined plus keeps
    my archives completely current, and won't willingly go back to the native
    files + graphics + fonts method.
    Eric Gill, Jul 13, 2003
    #8
  9. Eric Gill

    Eric Gill Guest

    edjh <> wrote in news:cygQa.14969$_K5.6947
    @fe01.atl2.webusenet.com:

    >
    >>
    >> "Cannot find volume" on save.

    >
    > You know, now that I think back on it I do remember this issue from
    > years ago when Quark 4 was first released. But it was fixed with a patch
    > or update.


    Actually, no, it never was, at least not in 4. The only workaround was
    turning on the Autosave/backup and waiting for it to save the first time.
    That (usually) worked.

    I'm not sure they ever figured out exactly what was causing it.

    > Never see it now. Do you have the latest updates? Do you have
    > that Enhanced Preview extension enabled? I seem to remember that causing
    > some problem as well.


    If that sets it off, that would be good to know. Kyocera doesn't seem to be
    aware of that, though.
    Eric Gill, Jul 13, 2003
    #9
  10. Eric Gill

    edjh Guest

    Eric Gill wrote:

    >
    >>Never see it now. Do you have the latest updates? Do you have
    >>that Enhanced Preview extension enabled? I seem to remember that causing
    >>some problem as well.

    >
    >
    > If that sets it off, that would be good to know. Kyocera doesn't seem to be
    > aware of that, though.


    Maybe that was it then. All I can say is that I have not seen this (nor
    has anyone in my office--over 50 users)since just after Quark 4 was
    released.
    --
    Comic book sketches and artwork:
    http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
    edjh, Jul 13, 2003
    #10
  11. Eric Gill

    Hecate Guest

    On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:28:15 -0400, edjh <> wrote:

    >Eric Gill wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>>Never see it now. Do you have the latest updates? Do you have
    >>>that Enhanced Preview extension enabled? I seem to remember that causing
    >>>some problem as well.

    >>
    >>
    >> If that sets it off, that would be good to know. Kyocera doesn't seem to be
    >> aware of that, though.

    >
    >Maybe that was it then. All I can say is that I have not seen this (nor
    >has anyone in my office--over 50 users)since just after Quark 4 was
    >released.


    OK. Read this all through. I agree with Eric. (who named exactly one
    of the bugs I was thinking of _ I only supported people using Quark
    for a short time - it just seemed like years <g>)I hope to be able to
    purchase ID in the near future.

    As for the Mac v. PC thing. The reason Mac users would get depressed
    switching to Windows is because they are Mac users (and some would say
    don't know any better, but I couldn't possibly comment <g>). The same
    is true of PC users of course. ;-)

    --

    Hecate
    (Fried computers a specialty)
    Hecate, Jul 14, 2003
    #11
  12. Eric Gill

    Hecate Guest

    On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:16:10 -0400, edjh <> wrote:


    >> OK. Read this all through. I agree with Eric. (who named exactly one
    >> of the bugs I was thinking of _ I only supported people using Quark
    >> for a short time - it just seemed like years <g>)I hope to be able to
    >> purchase ID in the near future.
    >>
    >> As for the Mac v. PC thing. The reason Mac users would get depressed
    >> switching to Windows is because they are Mac users (and some would say
    >> don't know any better, but I couldn't possibly comment <g>). The same
    >> is true of PC users of course. ;-)
    >>
    >> --
    >>
    >> Hecate
    >> (Fried computers a specialty)

    >
    >Well, we're not doing Mac vs PC so I'll reserve my horse-laugh for
    >another time. But which Quark bug are you referring to? If it's the
    >"volume not found" thing, I tell you that can be fixed on the Mac
    >platform. As I said, Quark can be a pain in the ass, but I am just not
    >experiencing these bugs.


    Yes, that one. And we had exactly the same sort of experiences Eric
    did. On Mac and Win. (Except, of course, as is usual with Quark, the
    Windows version had even more bugs than the Mac version).

    And the reason I only supported people using Quark for a short time?
    They discovered that Pagemaker could do everything they needed and
    switched to that. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that given time, a
    fair wind, a bugless half and hour or so when the pigs are flying over
    the blue moon, that Quark could do more. But PM did everything that
    was needed, was stable and much easier to use, and had a support desk
    that didn't make you want to personally go there and ram the phone
    down their throat. ;-)

    >Don't get me wrong. If they announced at my job tomorrow that we were
    >switching to InDesign I would not shed a tear for Quark. I just don't
    >have much of a problem with it.


    LOL! That's fair enough. Peo[ple's experiences will always be
    different. But from what I've heard and seen, you've been lucky. :)

    --

    Hecate
    (Fried computers a specialty)
    Hecate, Jul 15, 2003
    #12
    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. John O.

    Re: PDN story on photo agency retouching departments

    John O., Jul 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    413
    John O.
    Jul 12, 2003
  2. Rastin Mehr

    Re: PDN story on photo agency retouching departments

    Rastin Mehr, Jul 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    434
    Rastin Mehr
    Jul 12, 2003
  3. Hans-Georg Michna

    Nice Photo Retouching Samples

    Hans-Georg Michna, Nov 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    391
    agent yellow
    Nov 4, 2003
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    751
    Plato
    Jun 17, 2006
  5. kena
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    481
Loading...

Share This Page