What do you expect?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dudley Hanks, Aug 1, 2009.

  1. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Dudley Hanks, Aug 1, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > It's only a webcam...
    >
    > http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley


    Thanks, Dudley. The lower image is broken in Firefox and Internet
    Explorer.

    Do you find the larger display as a viewfinder more helpful? The fixed
    focussing suits the background but leaves Mich out of focus.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 1, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dudley Hanks

    Richard Guest

    "Tiring of Being Honest" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:18:28 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>It's only a webcam...
    >>
    >>http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
    >>
    >>Take Care,
    >>Dudley
    >>
    >>

    >
    > With the Netbook's full display being your viewfinder ...
    >
    > I expect: At least one of your subjects to be properly framed and
    > composed,
    > some day. Today was not it, again.
    >
    > I expect: Both of your images to be properly exposed. The second one even
    > has some serious data glitch in it where two images appear to be combined,
    > as if there was a file-allocation-table (FAT) screw-up and it tried to
    > merge two different photos, the lower 7/8ths of it all munged in a deep
    > purple-blue tint. Not unlike what can happen on a corrupt flash-memory
    > card.
    >
    > I expect: That you would at least proof these photos through someone who
    > can actually see them before you waste our time torturing us with them.
    >



    Well, you don't have to look, do you?
     
    Richard, Aug 1, 2009
    #3
  4. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Tiring of Being Honest" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:18:28 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>It's only a webcam...
    >>
    >>http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
    >>
    >>Take Care,
    >>Dudley
    >>
    >>

    >
    > With the Netbook's full display being your viewfinder ...
    >
    > I expect: At least one of your subjects to be properly framed and
    > composed,
    > some day. Today was not it, again.
    >
    > I expect: Both of your images to be properly exposed. The second one even
    > has some serious data glitch in it where two images appear to be combined,
    > as if there was a file-allocation-table (FAT) screw-up and it tried to
    > merge two different photos, the lower 7/8ths of it all munged in a deep
    > purple-blue tint. Not unlike what can happen on a corrupt flash-memory
    > card.
    >
    > I expect: That you would at least proof these photos through someone who
    > can actually see them before you waste our time torturing us with them.
    >
    > Even a webcam in talented hands can provide decent photography. Don't
    > blame
    > the size of the images nor the equipment that took them. 1280x1024 is
    > plenty of resolution in really talented hands. A once sold (at great cost
    > to the buyer) a friend's 1024x768 photo enlarged to a 13"x19" print
    > because
    > the subject was so overwhelming and rare.
    >
    > Your images on this page are total user error.
    >


    What part of REC PHOTOS DIGITAL do you not understand?

    If I were a pro, I would use a different group...

    If you don't like, don't look...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Aug 1, 2009
    #4
  5. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "David J Taylor"
    <-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
    message news:8ATcm.62812$...
    > Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >> It's only a webcam...
    >>
    >> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
    >>
    >> Take Care,
    >> Dudley

    >
    > Thanks, Dudley. The lower image is broken in Firefox and Internet
    > Explorer.
    >
    > Do you find the larger display as a viewfinder more helpful? The fixed
    > focussing suits the background but leaves Mich out of focus.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David



    >Given my condition, the larger display is actually less useful than the
    >smaller one. RP tends to reduce one's field of vision down to a point
    >where there is only a couple of degrees of anything useful.


    The display on the XSi is just about right. I can't take it all in at one
    glance, but I can work the edges fairly easily -- given the proper lighting.
    The netbook, at about 10 inches, is large enough that my eyes get lost
    roaming around the image surface.

    As for the broken image, I'm not sure what is happening there. According to
    my daughter, the original is good. I'm not sure why it's getting garbled
    during browser resizing. here's direct links if anybody wants to take a
    look at the originals:

    http://snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/bored.jpg
    http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/mich.jpg

    Given that it's a web cam, it surprises me that Mich is out of focus. The
    laptop was set on the floor, farther away from him than it would be for the
    normal video chatter, so I didn't even consider worrying about focus, just
    thought everything would be clear...

    I'll have to play with it a bit to see how it responds.

    Thanks, David, your feedback helps me understand how this little cam works
    in this sort of situation. I appreciate it a lot.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Aug 1, 2009
    #5
  6. Dudley Hanks wrote:
    []
    >> Given my condition, the larger display is actually less useful than
    >> the smaller one. RP tends to reduce one's field of vision down to a
    >> point where there is only a couple of degrees of anything useful.

    >
    > The display on the XSi is just about right. I can't take it all in
    > at one glance, but I can work the edges fairly easily -- given the
    > proper lighting. The netbook, at about 10 inches, is large enough
    > that my eyes get lost roaming around the image surface.


    OK, Dudley, I appreciate what you mean.

    > As for the broken image, I'm not sure what is happening there. According
    > to my daughter, the original is good. I'm not sure why
    > it's getting garbled during browser resizing. here's direct links if
    > anybody wants to take a look at the originals:
    >
    > http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/mich.jpg


    The image there is broken.

    > Given that it's a web cam, it surprises me that Mich is out of focus.
    > The laptop was set on the floor, farther away from him than it would
    > be for the normal video chatter, so I didn't even consider worrying
    > about focus, just thought everything would be clear...
    >
    > I'll have to play with it a bit to see how it responds.


    I imagine that such Webcams might not have a focus control, but I don't
    know as I went for a cheaper laptop with no Webcam myself. Perhaps there
    is a focus adjustment you can play with. I recall there was one on my
    earlier Logitech Webcam.

    > Thanks, David, your feedback helps me understand how this little cam
    > works in this sort of situation. I appreciate it a lot.
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley


    You're welcome.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 1, 2009
    #6
  7. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    I used to help many disabled people in the past
    > with things they were now incapable of doing. They hated those that gave
    > them special treatment and allowances out of sympathy. They wanted to be
    > treated just like everyone else


    This is why I still read your posts, in spite of the vitriol. You do give
    me useful feedback. I just have to wade through a ton of shit to find the
    good stuff.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Aug 1, 2009
    #7
  8. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    >> As for the broken image, I'm not sure what is happening there. According
    >> to my daughter, the original is good. I'm not sure why
    >> it's getting garbled during browser resizing. here's direct links if
    >> anybody wants to take a look at the originals:
    >>
    >> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/mich.jpg

    >
    > The image there is broken.
    >

    This is why I post here. Trying to get a good critique from people who
    don't take photography as seriously as I do myself isn't easy, and the
    feedback doesn't catch everything...

    >> Given that it's a web cam, it surprises me that Mich is out of focus.
    >> The laptop was set on the floor, farther away from him than it would
    >> be for the normal video chatter, so I didn't even consider worrying
    >> about focus, just thought everything would be clear...
    >>
    >> I'll have to play with it a bit to see how it responds.

    >
    > I imagine that such Webcams might not have a focus control, but I don't
    > know as I went for a cheaper laptop with no Webcam myself. Perhaps there
    > is a focus adjustment you can play with. I recall there was one on my
    > earlier Logitech Webcam.



    I didn't actually buy the netbook for the cam, so I won't waste a lot of
    time with it -- got it more for a portable note taker. The web cam was
    included so just had to play with it.

    But, some things I just can't help tinkering with. So, I'll more than
    likely end up looking for an adjustment to see if I can get better results.

    Once again, David, thanks for the feedback. It really helps.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Aug 1, 2009
    #8
  9. Dudley Hanks

    Paul Furman Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > []
    >
    >> As for the broken image, I'm not sure what is happening there.
    >> According to my daughter, the original is good. I'm not sure why
    >> it's getting garbled during browser resizing. here's direct links if
    >> anybody wants to take a look at the originals:
    >>
    >> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/mich.jpg

    >
    > The image there is broken.


    After the top 1/5 of the image, the green channel seems to have been
    lost and it turns purple/red. Also that makes the remainder badly
    underexposed. The exposure is probably about right without severely
    blowing out the background, try raising the gamma and increasing the
    contrast, it holds up surprisingly well. With irfanview I increased
    gamma to 3 & contrast to 50. The dog is down there in the dark without
    much light on him.


    >> Given that it's a web cam, it surprises me that Mich is out of focus.
    >> The laptop was set on the floor, farther away from him than it would
    >> be for the normal video chatter, so I didn't even consider worrying
    >> about focus, just thought everything would be clear...
    >>
    >> I'll have to play with it a bit to see how it responds.

    >
    > I imagine that such Webcams might not have a focus control, but I don't
    > know as I went for a cheaper laptop with no Webcam myself. Perhaps
    > there is a focus adjustment you can play with. I recall there was one
    > on my earlier Logitech Webcam.


    In my experience, the only variables for a webcam are shutter speed and
    perhaps ISO/gain in a fancy model. You could possibly place a pinhole
    aperture over the front to stop down for DOF <grin>.


    >> Thanks, David, your feedback helps me understand how this little cam
    >> works in this sort of situation. I appreciate it a lot.
    >>
    >> Take Care,
    >> Dudley

    >
    > You're welcome.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David



    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 1, 2009
    #9
  10. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    According to A Wee Bit Too Honest, the garbled image looked kind of like a
    couple of images getting scrambled on a malfunctioning memory card, which
    got me thinking...

    I keep my web files on a memory card, so the pic was transferred from the
    netbook to the memory card before being uploaded. In the off chance the
    image got garbled while copying, I've re-uploaded the pic; this time,
    directly from the laptop.

    http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html

    Just wondering if it's improved, or if it's still jumbled.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Aug 1, 2009
    #10
  11. Dudley Hanks

    Paul Furman Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > According to A Wee Bit Too Honest, the garbled image looked kind of like a
    > couple of images getting scrambled on a malfunctioning memory card, which
    > got me thinking...
    >
    > I keep my web files on a memory card, so the pic was transferred from the
    > netbook to the memory card before being uploaded. In the off chance the
    > image got garbled while copying, I've re-uploaded the pic; this time,
    > directly from the laptop.
    >
    > http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
    >
    > Just wondering if it's improved, or if it's still jumbled.


    Still jumbled. It initially looks like a double exposure but it's not.
    The problem is the green (or cyan?) drops out after a few rows of data.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 1, 2009
    #11
  12. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
    news:h524ie$6f5$-september.org...
    > Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >> According to A Wee Bit Too Honest, the garbled image looked kind of like
    >> a couple of images getting scrambled on a malfunctioning memory card,
    >> which got me thinking...
    >>
    >> I keep my web files on a memory card, so the pic was transferred from the
    >> netbook to the memory card before being uploaded. In the off chance the
    >> image got garbled while copying, I've re-uploaded the pic; this time,
    >> directly from the laptop.
    >>
    >> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
    >>
    >> Just wondering if it's improved, or if it's still jumbled.

    >
    > Still jumbled. It initially looks like a double exposure but it's not. The
    > problem is the green (or cyan?) drops out after a few rows of data.
    >
    > --
    > Paul Furman
    > www.edgehill.net
    > www.baynatives.com
    >
    > all google groups messages filtered due to spam


    Thanks, Paul, I'll have to do a bit of experimenting with it.

    I wonder if it is a result of the low light. The software gives more
    lighting adjustment when using the video mode than for stills. I hope the
    error has something to do with that area. The thought that files are
    getting merged concerns me more, since that could have more to do with the
    OS than the cam.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Aug 1, 2009
    #12
  13. Dudley Hanks

    Paul Furman Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > Paul Furman wrote
    >> Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >>
    >>> According to A Wee Bit Too Honest, the garbled image looked kind of like
    >>> a couple of images getting scrambled on a malfunctioning memory card,
    >>> which got me thinking...
    >>>
    >>> I keep my web files on a memory card, so the pic was transferred from the
    >>> netbook to the memory card before being uploaded. In the off chance the
    >>> image got garbled while copying, I've re-uploaded the pic; this time,
    >>> directly from the laptop.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
    >>>
    >>> Just wondering if it's improved, or if it's still jumbled.

    >> Still jumbled. It initially looks like a double exposure but it's not. The
    >> problem is the green (or cyan?) drops out after a few rows of data.

    >
    > Thanks, Paul, I'll have to do a bit of experimenting with it.
    >
    > I wonder if it is a result of the low light. The software gives more
    > lighting adjustment when using the video mode than for stills. I hope the
    > error has something to do with that area. The thought that files are
    > getting merged concerns me more, since that could have more to do with the
    > OS than the cam.


    Looks like the data got corrupted somehow: malfunctioning memory card. I
    checked and it's actually the yellow channel that's cut off. That
    suggests some problem with the jpeg compression:

    http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-color-space.html
    "The human eye has a frequency response that suggests a strong
    sensitivity to high-frequency luminance (brightness) and a weak
    sensitivity to high-frequency chrominance (color information). Realizing
    this, an optimized compression scheme would apply less compression to
    the luminance detail (i.e. higher quality, lower loss) than the
    chrominance detail.

    To accomplish this, the JPEG compression scheme begins with a color
    space conversion from RGB (Red - Green - Blue) into YCbCr (Luminance -
    Blue/Yellow - Red/Green) (also called YCrCb by some). This conversion
    takes the three standard channels (RGB) and maps them into a different
    representation that is based on a luminance (brightness) channel and two
    opposing color channels.
    RGB color space conversion to YCbCr

    Having done this conversion step, the JPEG image compression algorithm
    can then apply more compression to the color information channels than
    the luminance information and yet still arrive at an acceptable
    resulting image quality.

    The most significant savings in JPEG compression come from the
    truncation or elimination of high-frequency detail (through a process
    called quantization). Low-frequency information is preserved, while
    detail at higher frequencies is progressively discarded in greater
    amounts as the frequency increases.

    If JPEG compression operated on RGB data instead of YCbCr data, one
    would not be able to discard as much of the higher frequency content
    without causing a noticeable loss in image quality. Some studies have
    compared the suitability of other color spaces (e.g. RGB, HSV, Lab,
    etc.) for image compression and have demonstrated that YCbCr is a very
    suitable choice (at least for human observation of natural photos)."

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 1, 2009
    #13
  14. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
    news:h527t2$onl$-september.org...
    > Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >> Paul Furman wrote
    >>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> According to A Wee Bit Too Honest, the garbled image looked kind of
    >>>> like a couple of images getting scrambled on a malfunctioning memory
    >>>> card, which got me thinking...
    >>>>
    >>>> I keep my web files on a memory card, so the pic was transferred from
    >>>> the netbook to the memory card before being uploaded. In the off
    >>>> chance the image got garbled while copying, I've re-uploaded the pic;
    >>>> this time, directly from the laptop.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
    >>>>
    >>>> Just wondering if it's improved, or if it's still jumbled.
    >>> Still jumbled. It initially looks like a double exposure but it's not.
    >>> The problem is the green (or cyan?) drops out after a few rows of data.

    >>
    >> Thanks, Paul, I'll have to do a bit of experimenting with it.
    >>
    >> I wonder if it is a result of the low light. The software gives more
    >> lighting adjustment when using the video mode than for stills. I hope
    >> the error has something to do with that area. The thought that files are
    >> getting merged concerns me more, since that could have more to do with
    >> the OS than the cam.

    >
    > Looks like the data got corrupted somehow: malfunctioning memory card. I
    > checked and it's actually the yellow channel that's cut off. That suggests
    > some problem with the jpeg compression:
    >
    > http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-color-space.html
    > "The human eye has a frequency response that suggests a strong sensitivity
    > to high-frequency luminance (brightness) and a weak sensitivity to
    > high-frequency chrominance (color information). Realizing this, an
    > optimized compression scheme would apply less compression to the luminance
    > detail (i.e. higher quality, lower loss) than the chrominance detail.
    >
    > To accomplish this, the JPEG compression scheme begins with a color space
    > conversion from RGB (Red - Green - Blue) into YCbCr (Luminance -
    > Blue/Yellow - Red/Green) (also called YCrCb by some). This conversion
    > takes the three standard channels (RGB) and maps them into a different
    > representation that is based on a luminance (brightness) channel and two
    > opposing color channels.
    > RGB color space conversion to YCbCr
    >
    > Having done this conversion step, the JPEG image compression algorithm can
    > then apply more compression to the color information channels than the
    > luminance information and yet still arrive at an acceptable resulting
    > image quality.
    >
    > The most significant savings in JPEG compression come from the truncation
    > or elimination of high-frequency detail (through a process called
    > quantization). Low-frequency information is preserved, while detail at
    > higher frequencies is progressively discarded in greater amounts as the
    > frequency increases.
    >
    > If JPEG compression operated on RGB data instead of YCbCr data, one would
    > not be able to discard as much of the higher frequency content without
    > causing a noticeable loss in image quality. Some studies have compared the
    > suitability of other color spaces (e.g. RGB, HSV, Lab, etc.) for image
    > compression and have demonstrated that YCbCr is a very suitable choice (at
    > least for human observation of natural photos)."
    >
    > --
    > Paul Furman
    > www.edgehill.net
    > www.baynatives.com
    >
    > all google groups messages filtered due to spam


    So, basically, this was a compression problem, possibly brought on (or
    exacerbated) by low light. That makes me feel a bit better. I just had to
    have a new desktop computer repaired because of HD problems, so I had
    visions of long chats with techies again...

    I'll do a few runs of shots in varying light conditions and see if the error
    can be replicated, or whether it's just a one-off gliche because of some
    unique problem the existing light posed to the compression routine.

    Thanks, Paul.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Aug 1, 2009
    #14
  15. Dudley Hanks

    whisky-dave Guest

    "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:TScm.39044$PH1.18223@edtnps82...
    > It's only a webcam...
    >
    > http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley



    I've a webcam on my pet too,
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/whisky-dave/webcam/index.html

    well actually it's to check who's trying to go through the cat flap.

    Once triggered ,a video clip is recorded for 3 mins. Then I put the clips
    together,
    playback speed 400-800%

    Both the tracks below contain music
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUBgEZ5fteU
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHNeKgu1k34
     
    whisky-dave, Aug 3, 2009
    #15
  16. Dudley Hanks

    John Turco Guest

    whisky-dave wrote:
    >
    > "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    > news:eek:TScm.39044$PH1.18223@edtnps82...
    > > It's only a webcam...
    > >
    > > http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
    > >
    > > Take Care,
    > > Dudley

    >
    > I've a webcam on my pet too,
    > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/whisky-dave/webcam/index.html
    >
    > well actually it's to check who's trying to go through the cat flap.


    <edited>

    Hello, Dave:

    If a feline (or any other animal) is using your "cat flap," he shouldn't
    be referred to, as a "who." <g>

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Aug 10, 2009
    #16
  17. Dudley Hanks

    whisky-dave Guest

    "John Turco" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > whisky-dave wrote:
    >>
    >> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >> news:eek:TScm.39044$PH1.18223@edtnps82...
    >> > It's only a webcam...
    >> >
    >> > http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
    >> >
    >> > Take Care,
    >> > Dudley

    >>
    >> I've a webcam on my pet too,
    >> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/whisky-dave/webcam/index.html
    >>
    >> well actually it's to check who's trying to go through the cat flap.

    >
    > <edited>
    >
    > Hello, Dave:
    >
    > If a feline (or any other animal) is using your "cat flap," he shouldn't
    > be referred to, as a "who." <g>


    True, I usually refer to them as either the ginger bastard, or the ginger
    bastard with the collar,
    or the black bastard. ;-)


    > Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>


    I noticed the titles of the painting aren't quite as inventive as mine ;)
     
    whisky-dave, Aug 10, 2009
    #17
  18. Dudley Hanks

    John Turco Guest

    whisky-dave wrote:
    >
    > "John Turco" <> wrote in message
    > news:...


    <edited for brevity>

    > > If a feline (or any other animal) is using your "cat flap," he shouldn't
    > > be referred to, as a "who." <g>

    >
    > True, I usually refer to them as either the ginger bastard, or the ginger
    > bastard with the collar, or the black bastard. ;-)


    Hello, Dave:

    My, such colorful language! <g>

    > > Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>

    >
    > I noticed the titles of the painting aren't quite as inventive as mine ;)


    That's my younger sister's Web site...she's a pretty good artist, no? Help
    her make some extra money, by clicking on the ads.

    Please, encourage all of your pals to do so, too. :-J

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Aug 20, 2009
    #18
    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. ajacobs2
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    500
    ajacobs2
    Jul 23, 2003
  2. Hans-Georg Michna

    Re: Close up of a Spider(you know what to expect) [81KB]

    Hans-Georg Michna, Jul 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    359
    Bob O`Bob
    Jul 23, 2003
  3. peace to all
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    713
    John Russell
    Jul 28, 2003
  4. Progressiveabsolution
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    459
    Bob Williams
    Jun 4, 2006
  5. Progressiveabsolution
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    314
    Progressiveabsolution
    Jun 3, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page