Recommendations needed for flat-panel and CRT monitors for photo work?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mxsmanic, Oct 31, 2004.

  1. Mxsmanic

    Mxsmanic Guest

    My excellent Sony 20" CRT is gradually giving up the ghost; it has
    dimmed enough over the past two months that I no longer trust it for
    photo work, and so I've suspended my scanning activities until I can
    replace it.

    I'm very interested in hearing recommendations for a new monitor. I
    want a monitor that is well suited to precision photo work, and it
    _must_ support at least 1600x1200 pixels at at least 60-70 Hz refresh.
    It must have standard analog inputs compatible with my existing NVidia
    video card. The monitor should be a 20" model (or a 19" viewing area
    minimum). It must be able to resolve individual pixels on the screen at
    1600x1200.

    I'm interested in both flat-panel and CRT monitors. Traditionally I've
    looked to CRTs for the very best quality for photo work (and I'd still
    love to have a Sony Artisan, but I doubt if I can afford that now), but
    I'm wondering how much the flat panels have improved. My CRT is
    slipping so fast that just about anything would be better, I suppose.

    I'd like recommendations based mainly on quality and reliability, and
    also on both of these with respect to price (price/performance).

    Have manufacturers succeeded in consistently producing large flat-panels
    without defective pixels yet?

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Oct 31, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mxsmanic

    Michael Guest

    "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message news:...
    > My excellent Sony 20" CRT is gradually giving up the ghost; it has
    > dimmed enough over the past two months that I no longer trust it for
    > photo work, and so I've suspended my scanning activities until I can
    > replace it.
    >
    > I'm very interested in hearing recommendations for a new monitor. I
    > want a monitor that is well suited to precision photo work, and it
    > _must_ support at least 1600x1200 pixels at at least 60-70 Hz refresh.
    > It must have standard analog inputs compatible with my existing NVidia
    > video card. The monitor should be a 20" model (or a 19" viewing area
    > minimum). It must be able to resolve individual pixels on the screen at
    > 1600x1200.
    >
    > I'm interested in both flat-panel and CRT monitors. Traditionally I've
    > looked to CRTs for the very best quality for photo work (and I'd still
    > love to have a Sony Artisan, but I doubt if I can afford that now), but
    > I'm wondering how much the flat panels have improved. My CRT is
    > slipping so fast that just about anything would be better, I suppose.
    >
    > I'd like recommendations based mainly on quality and reliability, and
    > also on both of these with respect to price (price/performance).


    Price/performance-wise, even though LCDs have improved
    over the past few years, still nothing touches Mitsubishi's
    Diamondtron CRT. Their 22" 2070 is ~$700. To get the
    same color gamut on an LCD costs 3x as much, or more.
    Not to mention a CRT's resolution and refresh rate flexibility,
    which cannot be had on an LCD at any price.

    Mike
     
    Michael, Oct 31, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mxsmanic

    Dave Guest

    Personally I think you should invest in monitor like in speakers for your
    stereo system. The speakers on your stereo system are literally what you
    hear - you don't hear the DVD player or the receiver, etc. Within limits
    and unless you have very discriminating ears and are a real audiophile, the
    impact of receiver and other electronics are nothing next to the speakers'
    quality. Also, everyone has different ideas about what sounds good to them.

    Same thing, in my mind, applies to monitors. The process/box/memory needs
    to meet certain minimum standards (depending on use) but after that I would
    say it doesn't matter much. But that is not true of the monitor. Go to the
    store, take a look, try to get the salespeople to display from a CD a jpeg
    file that you KNOW should look a certain way. See what YOU prefer. If you
    want that Sony, GET IT. It will be with you for years, the 100s of dollars
    different it might cost you now are nothing compared to the enjoyment and
    satisfaction you will get over the years because you bought the right
    display that was perfect, in your mind, for your use and application.
    "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My excellent Sony 20" CRT is gradually giving up the ghost; it has
    > dimmed enough over the past two months that I no longer trust it for
    > photo work, and so I've suspended my scanning activities until I can
    > replace it.
    >
    > I'm very interested in hearing recommendations for a new monitor. I
    > want a monitor that is well suited to precision photo work, and it
    > _must_ support at least 1600x1200 pixels at at least 60-70 Hz refresh.
    > It must have standard analog inputs compatible with my existing NVidia
    > video card. The monitor should be a 20" model (or a 19" viewing area
    > minimum). It must be able to resolve individual pixels on the screen at
    > 1600x1200.
    >
    > I'm interested in both flat-panel and CRT monitors. Traditionally I've
    > looked to CRTs for the very best quality for photo work (and I'd still
    > love to have a Sony Artisan, but I doubt if I can afford that now), but
    > I'm wondering how much the flat panels have improved. My CRT is
    > slipping so fast that just about anything would be better, I suppose.
    >
    > I'd like recommendations based mainly on quality and reliability, and
    > also on both of these with respect to price (price/performance).
    >
    > Have manufacturers succeeded in consistently producing large flat-panels
    > without defective pixels yet?
    >
    > --
    > Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Dave, Oct 31, 2004
    #3
  4. Mxsmanic

    Dave Guest

    Interesting, while a CRT does have inherently higher resolution and more
    flexible resolution than LCD, with LCD there is as far as I know NO issue on
    refresh rate - is not applicable to LCDs. The picture I've seen on LCDs is
    always rock-steady. NEVER have observed ANY flickering.

    "Michael" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> My excellent Sony 20" CRT is gradually giving up the ghost; it has
    >> dimmed enough over the past two months that I no longer trust it for
    >> photo work, and so I've suspended my scanning activities until I can
    >> replace it.
    >>
    >> I'm very interested in hearing recommendations for a new monitor. I
    >> want a monitor that is well suited to precision photo work, and it
    >> _must_ support at least 1600x1200 pixels at at least 60-70 Hz refresh.
    >> It must have standard analog inputs compatible with my existing NVidia
    >> video card. The monitor should be a 20" model (or a 19" viewing area
    >> minimum). It must be able to resolve individual pixels on the screen at
    >> 1600x1200.
    >>
    >> I'm interested in both flat-panel and CRT monitors. Traditionally I've
    >> looked to CRTs for the very best quality for photo work (and I'd still
    >> love to have a Sony Artisan, but I doubt if I can afford that now), but
    >> I'm wondering how much the flat panels have improved. My CRT is
    >> slipping so fast that just about anything would be better, I suppose.
    >>
    >> I'd like recommendations based mainly on quality and reliability, and
    >> also on both of these with respect to price (price/performance).

    >
    > Price/performance-wise, even though LCDs have improved
    > over the past few years, still nothing touches Mitsubishi's
    > Diamondtron CRT. Their 22" 2070 is ~$700. To get the
    > same color gamut on an LCD costs 3x as much, or more.
    > Not to mention a CRT's resolution and refresh rate flexibility,
    > which cannot be had on an LCD at any price.
    >
    > Mike
    >
    >
    >
     
    Dave, Oct 31, 2004
    #4
  5. Mxsmanic

    Michael Guest

    Granted, refresh rate is not an issue for still photography work,
    but certainly is for video. Ghosting is still a problem on most
    LCDs.

    "Dave" <> wrote in message news:6k1hd.32$...
    > Interesting, while a CRT does have inherently higher resolution and more
    > flexible resolution than LCD, with LCD there is as far as I know NO issue on
    > refresh rate - is not applicable to LCDs. The picture I've seen on LCDs is
    > always rock-steady. NEVER have observed ANY flickering.
    >
    > "Michael" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> My excellent Sony 20" CRT is gradually giving up the ghost; it has
    > >> dimmed enough over the past two months that I no longer trust it for
    > >> photo work, and so I've suspended my scanning activities until I can
    > >> replace it.
    > >>
    > >> I'm very interested in hearing recommendations for a new monitor. I
    > >> want a monitor that is well suited to precision photo work, and it
    > >> _must_ support at least 1600x1200 pixels at at least 60-70 Hz refresh.
    > >> It must have standard analog inputs compatible with my existing NVidia
    > >> video card. The monitor should be a 20" model (or a 19" viewing area
    > >> minimum). It must be able to resolve individual pixels on the screen at
    > >> 1600x1200.
    > >>
    > >> I'm interested in both flat-panel and CRT monitors. Traditionally I've
    > >> looked to CRTs for the very best quality for photo work (and I'd still
    > >> love to have a Sony Artisan, but I doubt if I can afford that now), but
    > >> I'm wondering how much the flat panels have improved. My CRT is
    > >> slipping so fast that just about anything would be better, I suppose.
    > >>
    > >> I'd like recommendations based mainly on quality and reliability, and
    > >> also on both of these with respect to price (price/performance).

    > >
    > > Price/performance-wise, even though LCDs have improved
    > > over the past few years, still nothing touches Mitsubishi's
    > > Diamondtron CRT. Their 22" 2070 is ~$700. To get the
    > > same color gamut on an LCD costs 3x as much, or more.
    > > Not to mention a CRT's resolution and refresh rate flexibility,
    > > which cannot be had on an LCD at any price.
    > >
    > > Mike
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Michael, Oct 31, 2004
    #5
  6. Mxsmanic

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Michael writes:

    > Price/performance-wise, even though LCDs have improved
    > over the past few years, still nothing touches Mitsubishi's
    > Diamondtron CRT. Their 22" 2070 is ~$700.


    Are you talking about just this specific model, or all the related
    Diamondtron models?

    I've always bought Sony, but I see that these Mitsubishi CRTs seem to be
    widely appreciated. Do they age gracefully (no blurring or distortion
    as they get older)? My Sony's only real problem is that it's going
    dim--the resolution and sharpness and convergence and geometry have
    barely changed at all.

    > To get the same color gamut on an LCD costs 3x as much, or more.


    So I've noticed.

    > Not to mention a CRT's resolution and refresh rate flexibility,
    > which cannot be had on an LCD at any price.


    Yes. My other concern, though, is just putting the CRT into place. A
    huge cube half a metre on a side weighing 30 kg is a lot to manipulate
    by oneself, especially when it must be placed on the corner of a desk
    (hard to avoid bending over in that case, and bending over with a heavy
    weight is very risky).

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Oct 31, 2004
    #6
  7. Mxsmanic

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Michael writes:

    > Granted, refresh rate is not an issue for still photography work,
    > but certainly is for video. Ghosting is still a problem on most
    > LCDs.


    I don't work with video at all. The closest I come is an occasional
    session with Flight Simulator. Also, I seem to be very insensitive to
    flicker, so I can get by with refresh rates as low as 60 Hz at
    1600x1200, without really noticing anything at all.

    Also, overall my biggest requirement is for high resolution and
    sharpness, but for photos I really do need proper gamma and color
    rendition. So I have to try to find a balance between going for broke
    just for the photo work and saving a bit in consideration of the fact
    that I do a lot of other stuff on the machine that doesn't require fancy
    image specifications.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Oct 31, 2004
    #7
  8. Mxsmanic

    Michael Guest

    "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message news:...
    > Michael writes:
    >
    > > Price/performance-wise, even though LCDs have improved
    > > over the past few years, still nothing touches Mitsubishi's
    > > Diamondtron CRT. Their 22" 2070 is ~$700.

    >
    > Are you talking about just this specific model, or all the related
    > Diamondtron models?


    As far as I know the 2070 is Mitsubishi's only remaining 22"
    model that uses this tube. But any monitor based on the
    Diamondtron CRT will have about the same gamut. LaCie
    and others use them, but they cost more.

    > I've always bought Sony, but I see that these Mitsubishi CRTs seem to be
    > widely appreciated. Do they age gracefully (no blurring or distortion
    > as they get older)? My Sony's only real problem is that it's going
    > dim--the resolution and sharpness and convergence and geometry have
    > barely changed at all.


    I routinely see 5 and 6 year-old Diamondtrons in the field
    that are still perfectly calibrated and performing perfectly.
    LCD backlights, like all other fluorescent bulbs lose much
    of their brightness within the first 2-3 years.

    > > To get the same color gamut on an LCD costs 3x as much, or more.

    >
    > So I've noticed.
    >
    > > Not to mention a CRT's resolution and refresh rate flexibility,
    > > which cannot be had on an LCD at any price.

    >
    > Yes. My other concern, though, is just putting the CRT into place. A
    > huge cube half a metre on a side weighing 30 kg is a lot to manipulate
    > by oneself, especially when it must be placed on the corner of a desk
    > (hard to avoid bending over in that case, and bending over with a heavy
    > weight is very risky).


    In that regard LCDs are a godsend. They're excellent for
    text work, and even for casual, non-critical graphic work.

    Mike
     
    Michael, Oct 31, 2004
    #8
  9. Mxsmanic

    Larry Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > > Granted, refresh rate is not an issue for still photography work,
    > > but certainly is for video. Ghosting is still a problem on most
    > > LCDs.

    >
    > I don't work with video at all. The closest I come is an occasional
    > session with Flight Simulator. Also, I seem to be very insensitive to
    > flicker, so I can get by with refresh rates as low as 60 Hz at
    > 1600x1200, without really noticing anything at all.
    >
    > Also, overall my biggest requirement is for high resolution and
    > sharpness, but for photos I really do need proper gamma and color
    > rendition. So I have to try to find a balance between going for broke
    > just for the photo work and saving a bit in consideration of the fact
    > that I do a lot of other stuff on the machine that doesn't require fancy
    > image specifications.
    >
    > --
    > Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    >


    I know I'll get jumped on for this, but when working with
    photos I allways get better results (whats on the screen is
    whats comes out on paper) if I use a crt.

    I have used LCD for video work (and I've spent a LOT of
    money on 17", 19", and 20" LCD displays) and for video,
    even high res video, the LCD monitors do a good job.

    When it comes to WYSIWYG doing PRINTS, I'll settle for a
    $300 or $400 CRT.


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry, Oct 31, 2004
    #9
  10. Mxsmanic

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Larry writes:

    > I know I'll get jumped on for this, but when working with
    > photos I allways get better results (whats on the screen is
    > whats comes out on paper) if I use a crt.


    Why would anyone jump on that? The superiority of CRTs for such work is
    well known. Unfortunately, they are extremely bulky and heavy, and they
    wear out faster, and their specs change continuously (albeit slowly)
    over their lifetimes.

    > I have used LCD for video work (and I've spent a LOT of
    > money on 17", 19", and 20" LCD displays) and for video,
    > even high res video, the LCD monitors do a good job.


    Have you used LCD for photos? If so, what problems have you
    encountered?

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Oct 31, 2004
    #10
  11. Mxsmanic

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Michael writes:

    > In that regard LCDs are a godsend. They're excellent for
    > text work, and even for casual, non-critical graphic work.


    So how much would I lose by using, say, a $1000 LCD monitor for photo
    work, as compared to a good CRT? What are the weaknesses of the LCD and
    what would I have to sacrifice or be careful about?

    FWIW, on my other two machines, I already use flat panels. Neither is
    used for photo work, so the flat panels are more than good enough, and
    they have been rock stable since I bought them (and they are always on).

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Oct 31, 2004
    #11
  12. Mxsmanic

    GT40 Guest

    Take a look at the Wacom 18" LCD, it also supports the use of pen
    based work, great for Photoshop. Can be expensive though

    On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:05:10 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >My excellent Sony 20" CRT is gradually giving up the ghost; it has
    >dimmed enough over the past two months that I no longer trust it for
    >photo work, and so I've suspended my scanning activities until I can
    >replace it.
    >
    >I'm very interested in hearing recommendations for a new monitor. I
    >want a monitor that is well suited to precision photo work, and it
    >_must_ support at least 1600x1200 pixels at at least 60-70 Hz refresh.
    >It must have standard analog inputs compatible with my existing NVidia
    >video card. The monitor should be a 20" model (or a 19" viewing area
    >minimum). It must be able to resolve individual pixels on the screen at
    >1600x1200.
    >
    >I'm interested in both flat-panel and CRT monitors. Traditionally I've
    >looked to CRTs for the very best quality for photo work (and I'd still
    >love to have a Sony Artisan, but I doubt if I can afford that now), but
    >I'm wondering how much the flat panels have improved. My CRT is
    >slipping so fast that just about anything would be better, I suppose.
    >
    >I'd like recommendations based mainly on quality and reliability, and
    >also on both of these with respect to price (price/performance).
    >
    >Have manufacturers succeeded in consistently producing large flat-panels
    >without defective pixels yet?
     
    GT40, Oct 31, 2004
    #12
  13. Mxsmanic

    GT40 Guest

    On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:04:33 -0500, Larry
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >> > Granted, refresh rate is not an issue for still photography work,
    >> > but certainly is for video. Ghosting is still a problem on most
    >> > LCDs.

    >>
    >> I don't work with video at all. The closest I come is an occasional
    >> session with Flight Simulator. Also, I seem to be very insensitive to
    >> flicker, so I can get by with refresh rates as low as 60 Hz at
    >> 1600x1200, without really noticing anything at all.
    >>
    >> Also, overall my biggest requirement is for high resolution and
    >> sharpness, but for photos I really do need proper gamma and color
    >> rendition. So I have to try to find a balance between going for broke
    >> just for the photo work and saving a bit in consideration of the fact
    >> that I do a lot of other stuff on the machine that doesn't require fancy
    >> image specifications.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    >>

    >
    >I know I'll get jumped on for this, but when working with
    >photos I allways get better results (whats on the screen is
    >whats comes out on paper) if I use a crt.


    Do you color calibrate your LCD ?
     
    GT40, Oct 31, 2004
    #13
  14. Re: Recommendations needed for flat-panel and CRT monitors for photowork?

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    > Michael writes:
    >
    >
    >>Price/performance-wise, even though LCDs have improved
    >>over the past few years, still nothing touches Mitsubishi's
    >>Diamondtron CRT. Their 22" 2070 is ~$700.

    >
    >
    > Are you talking about just this specific model, or all the related
    > Diamondtron models?


    I'm happy with my 19" LaCie ElectronBlue IV. It uses the Mitsubishi
    Diamondtron tube. It's currently running at 1600x1200 just fine.
    I can't speak to how well it ages, having had it for only a few months.

    BJJB
     
    BillyJoeJimBob, Oct 31, 2004
    #14
  15. Mxsmanic

    Michael Guest

    "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message news:...
    > Michael writes:
    >
    > > In that regard LCDs are a godsend. They're excellent for
    > > text work, and even for casual, non-critical graphic work.

    >
    > So how much would I lose by using, say, a $1000 LCD monitor for photo
    > work, as compared to a good CRT? What are the weaknesses of the LCD and
    > what would I have to sacrifice or be careful about?


    Their biggest problem is and always has been with near blacks
    and near whites. The backlight technology used in consumer/
    prosumer LCDs does not allow for anything approaching true
    black, at least not relative to CRTs. Instead one has to choose
    between muddy blue or dark gray to represent black.

    Mike
     
    Michael, Oct 31, 2004
    #15
  16. Mxsmanic

    Larry Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Have you used LCD for photos? If so, what problems have you
    > encountered?
    >
    >


    Even the best I have used are not WYSIWYG for shadows and
    dark areas.


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry, Oct 31, 2004
    #16
  17. Mxsmanic

    Larry Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Do you color calibrate your LCD ?
    >


    To the extent that they can be calibrated, I calibrate
    them.

    IMNSHO They just dont do blacks and shadows well enough for
    me.

    I use them, and I like them, but NOT for mission critical
    photo-editing... (read that to mean, something someone
    besides me is paying for).


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry, Oct 31, 2004
    #17
  18. Mxsmanic

    Ken Oaf Guest

    On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:05:10 +0100, Mxsmanic <> wrote:

    > My excellent Sony 20" CRT is gradually giving up the ghost; it has
    > dimmed enough over the past two months that I no longer trust it for
    > photo work, and so I've suspended my scanning activities until I can
    > replace it.


    Can you turn up the sub-brightness? There is usually a knob for adjusting this
    inside the monitor itself.
     
    Ken Oaf, Oct 31, 2004
    #18
  19. Mxsmanic

    GT40 Guest

    On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:17:29 -0500, Larry
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >> Do you color calibrate your LCD ?
    >>

    >
    >To the extent that they can be calibrated, I calibrate
    >them.


    How do you calibate them, with one of the devices you place over the /
    part of the display?
     
    GT40, Oct 31, 2004
    #19
  20. Mxsmanic

    Steve m... Guest

    I read just this week in PC Magazine that if buy a LCD monitor to check the
    spec for response time. Anything below 25ms is a bonus as you will see very
    little blur. There are a few with response times around 15ms.

    Stevem....

    "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My excellent Sony 20" CRT is gradually giving up the ghost; it has
    > dimmed enough over the past two months that I no longer trust it for
    > photo work, and so I've suspended my scanning activities until I can
    > replace it.
    >
    > I'm very interested in hearing recommendations for a new monitor. I
    > want a monitor that is well suited to precision photo work, and it
    > _must_ support at least 1600x1200 pixels at at least 60-70 Hz refresh.
    > It must have standard analog inputs compatible with my existing NVidia
    > video card. The monitor should be a 20" model (or a 19" viewing area
    > minimum). It must be able to resolve individual pixels on the screen at
    > 1600x1200.
    >
    > I'm interested in both flat-panel and CRT monitors. Traditionally I've
    > looked to CRTs for the very best quality for photo work (and I'd still
    > love to have a Sony Artisan, but I doubt if I can afford that now), but
    > I'm wondering how much the flat panels have improved. My CRT is
    > slipping so fast that just about anything would be better, I suppose.
    >
    > I'd like recommendations based mainly on quality and reliability, and
    > also on both of these with respect to price (price/performance).
    >
    > Have manufacturers succeeded in consistently producing large flat-panels
    > without defective pixels yet?
    >
    > --
    > Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Steve m..., Oct 31, 2004
    #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. Flat Panel LCD Monitors

    , Feb 14, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    749
  2. michael turner

    Lack of digital DVI input on cheaper flat-panel monitors

    michael turner, May 6, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    639
    michael turner
    May 6, 2004
  3. Flat Panel Monitors

    , Jul 30, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    509
    Timberwolf
    Jul 31, 2004
  4. Martin

    Re: Are LCD Monitors Brigter than CRT Monitors

    Martin, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    580
    Martin
    Sep 8, 2004
  5. nobody

    Monitors, CRT of flat screen?

    nobody, Mar 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    537
    Sheldon
    Mar 22, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page