white balance

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by bernard.bergeron@gmail.com, Jun 23, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Could someone explain to me:
    - why should white balance adjustment be done by the camera and not by
    a software after the photo is taken. Do the captors behave differently
    depending on the detected color temperature, or is it purely a
    post-treatement?
    - how the white balance captors work and how you can "help" them to get
    the good measure.

    Thx
    (a D200/18-200 owner)
     
    , Jun 23, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 6/23/06 11:52 AM, posted the following:
    > Could someone explain to me:
    > - why should white balance adjustment be done by the camera and not by
    > a software after the photo is taken. Do the captors behave differently
    > depending on the detected color temperature, or is it purely a
    > post-treatement?
    > - how the white balance captors work and how you can "help" them to get
    > the good measure.
    >

    I prefer to set white balance on the camera, or leave it on auto, which
    means the camera is setting it, whether I am shooting RAW or JPEG. If
    shooting in RAW, you can post process to any color temp you want, with
    no adverse effects. If shooting JPEG, you don't have near the latitude
    to make adjustments, so it's more important to get it right in the first
    place. It's always better to get it all correct in the first place,
    before someone jumps all over that.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 23, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Pat Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > On 6/23/06 11:52 AM, posted the following:
    > > Could someone explain to me:
    > > - why should white balance adjustment be done by the camera and not by
    > > a software after the photo is taken. Do the captors behave differently
    > > depending on the detected color temperature, or is it purely a
    > > post-treatement?
    > > - how the white balance captors work and how you can "help" them to get
    > > the good measure.
    > >

    > I prefer to set white balance on the camera, or leave it on auto, which
    > means the camera is setting it, whether I am shooting RAW or JPEG. If
    > shooting in RAW, you can post process to any color temp you want, with
    > no adverse effects. If shooting JPEG, you don't have near the latitude
    > to make adjustments, so it's more important to get it right in the first
    > place. It's always better to get it all correct in the first place,
    > before someone jumps all over that.
    >
    > --
    > john mcwilliams


    Agreed. Think of it this way. You can get a good white balance before
    you start shooting, do it right once, and not worry about it. Or you
    can make lots and lots of corrections later. It depends on how much
    time you want use playing with pictures.

    Pat.
     
    Pat, Jun 23, 2006
    #3
  4. Joe Guest

    Shooting RAW, it doesn't matter, as white balance is easily adjusted during
    post production with no degradation in image quality.


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Could someone explain to me:
    > - why should white balance adjustment be done by the camera and not by
    > a software after the photo is taken. Do the captors behave differently
    > depending on the detected color temperature, or is it purely a
    > post-treatement?
    > - how the white balance captors work and how you can "help" them to get
    > the good measure.
    >
    > Thx
    > (a D200/18-200 owner)
    >
     
    Joe, Jun 23, 2006
    #4
  5. Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, John
    McWilliams laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...

    > On 6/23/06 11:52 AM, posted the
    > following:
    >> Could someone explain to me:
    >> - why should white balance adjustment be done by the camera
    >> and not by a software after the photo is taken. Do the
    >> captors behave differently depending on the detected color
    >> temperature, or is it purely a post-treatement? - how the
    >> white balance captors work and how you can "help" them to get
    >> the good measure.
    >>

    > I prefer to set white balance on the camera, or leave it on
    > auto, which means the camera is setting it, whether I am
    > shooting RAW or JPEG. If shooting in RAW, you can post process
    > to any color temp you want, with no adverse effects. If
    > shooting JPEG, you don't have near the latitude to make
    > adjustments, so it's more important to get it right in the
    > first place. It's always better to get it all correct in the
    > first place, before someone jumps all over that.
    >

    I think that both pre- and post-image WB adjustments are often
    needed. For example, I often start shooting car pictures in late
    afternoon and on into dusk. During that time, the color
    temperature is steadily dropping into the yellow-red range and if
    no pre-shooting adjustment is made, the pictures are irrevocably
    way to red-orange, unless you're using RAW, which I do not.

    There's several car shows coming up this month and in July, then
    the Woodward Dream Cruise in August. I plan to set my Rebel XT to
    WB-bracket and let it take 3 images for each shot. One will be
    way, way to "amber" and as the sun goes down, the too-blue images
    will start to come in. But, the sun drops so fast in July and
    August and there are hundreds of cars to shoot, it just isn't
    possible to try to do this analytically.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry

    "You made your bed, now lie in it!" - Things your Mom always said
     
    All Things Mopar, Jun 23, 2006
    #5
  6. Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Pat laid
    this on an unsuspecting readership ...

    >> I prefer to set white balance on the camera, or leave it on
    >> auto, which means the camera is setting it, whether I am
    >> shooting RAW or JPEG. If shooting in RAW, you can post
    >> process to any color temp you want, with no adverse effects.
    >> If shooting JPEG, you don't have near the latitude to make
    >> adjustments, so it's more important to get it right in the
    >> first place. It's always better to get it all correct in the
    >> first place, before someone jumps all over that.

    >
    > Agreed. Think of it this way. You can get a good white
    > balance before you start shooting, do it right once, and not
    > worry about it. Or you can make lots and lots of corrections
    > later. It depends on how much time you want use playing with
    > pictures.


    This is very good advice, if one can count on lighting to stay
    constant for the entire "shoot". Besides setting sun situations I
    talk about separately, it often happens that the sun is going
    behind large cloud banks part of the time and shining brightly at
    other times, while it is in-between much of the time. Other than
    RAW, I know of no guaranteed way to get WB, or more correctly to my
    way of thinking about photography, color balance correct as you
    walk around for several hours shooting hundreds of images.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry

    "You made your bed, now lie in it!" - Things your Mom always said
     
    All Things Mopar, Jun 23, 2006
    #6
  7. Guest

    Thanks for all the answers.
    I do understand the advantage of using the RAW format to correct the WB
    afterwards, but how does the camera initially decide what color or
    white will be the real white?

    All Things Mopar wrote:
    > Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Pat laid
    > this on an unsuspecting readership ...
    >
    > >> I prefer to set white balance on the camera, or leave it on
    > >> auto, which means the camera is setting it, whether I am
    > >> shooting RAW or JPEG. If shooting in RAW, you can post
    > >> process to any color temp you want, with no adverse effects.
    > >> If shooting JPEG, you don't have near the latitude to make
    > >> adjustments, so it's more important to get it right in the
    > >> first place. It's always better to get it all correct in the
    > >> first place, before someone jumps all over that.

    > >
    > > Agreed. Think of it this way. You can get a good white
    > > balance before you start shooting, do it right once, and not
    > > worry about it. Or you can make lots and lots of corrections
    > > later. It depends on how much time you want use playing with
    > > pictures.

    >
    > This is very good advice, if one can count on lighting to stay
    > constant for the entire "shoot". Besides setting sun situations I
    > talk about separately, it often happens that the sun is going
    > behind large cloud banks part of the time and shining brightly at
    > other times, while it is in-between much of the time. Other than
    > RAW, I know of no guaranteed way to get WB, or more correctly to my
    > way of thinking about photography, color balance correct as you
    > walk around for several hours shooting hundreds of images.
    >
    > --
    > ATM, aka Jerry
    >
    > "You made your bed, now lie in it!" - Things your Mom always said
     
    , Jun 23, 2006
    #7
  8. Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically,
    laid this on an unsuspecting
    readership ...

    > Thanks for all the answers.
    > I do understand the advantage of using the RAW format to
    > correct the WB afterwards, but how does the camera initially
    > decide what color or white will be the real white?


    Wish I could tell ya, but I haven't had the time since buying my
    Rebel 6 months ago to learn RAW.

    > All Things Mopar wrote:
    >> Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Pat laid
    >> this on an unsuspecting readership ...
    >>
    >> >> I prefer to set white balance on the camera, or leave it
    >> >> on auto, which means the camera is setting it, whether I
    >> >> am shooting RAW or JPEG. If shooting in RAW, you can post
    >> >> process to any color temp you want, with no adverse
    >> >> effects. If shooting JPEG, you don't have near the
    >> >> latitude to make adjustments, so it's more important to
    >> >> get it right in the first place. It's always better to get
    >> >> it all correct in the first place, before someone jumps
    >> >> all over that.
    >> >
    >> > Agreed. Think of it this way. You can get a good white
    >> > balance before you start shooting, do it right once, and
    >> > not worry about it. Or you can make lots and lots of
    >> > corrections later. It depends on how much time you want
    >> > use playing with pictures.

    >>
    >> This is very good advice, if one can count on lighting to
    >> stay constant for the entire "shoot". Besides setting sun
    >> situations I talk about separately, it often happens that the
    >> sun is going behind large cloud banks part of the time and
    >> shining brightly at other times, while it is in-between much
    >> of the time. Other than RAW, I know of no guaranteed way to
    >> get WB, or more correctly to my way of thinking about
    >> photography, color balance correct as you walk around for
    >> several hours shooting hundreds of images.
    >>
    >> --
    >> ATM, aka Jerry
    >>
    >> "You made your bed, now lie in it!" - Things your Mom always
    >> said

    >
    >




    --
    ATM, aka Jerry

    "You made your bed, now lie in it!" - Things your Mom always said
     
    All Things Mopar, Jun 23, 2006
    #8
  9. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Could someone explain to me:
    > - why should white balance adjustment be done by the camera and not by

    Bernard - since you mention owning a D200 I am going to go a step furthur
    here and suggest that for certain situations white balance should be done in
    front of the lens.

    Don't believe me? Do this simple test. Take a close up shot of a person's
    face indoors using nothing but tungsten lights. Set the cameras white
    balance to either auto or tungsten/incandescent. Then pull up an RGB
    histogram of the image and see how many problems you can spot. Hint - only
    the green channel will be good.

    It is something of a pain, and certainly isn't that useful for candid shots
    or rapidly changing conditions, but I always carry around a cokin adapter
    with yellow and blue filters, and then also a set of filters for my flash
    unit.

    Generally speaking I leave the D200 on auto and then make adjusted on groups
    of images via ACR.

    Regards,
    Andrew
     
    Andrew Crabtree, Jun 23, 2006
    #9
  10. Scott W Guest

    wrote:
    > Thanks for all the answers.
    > I do understand the advantage of using the RAW format to correct the WB
    > afterwards, but how does the camera initially decide what color or
    > white will be the real white?


    The camera simply puts into the raw file what the WB setting was, the
    raw converter can then do whatever it want to with that information.
    Most raw converters will start out using what the camera was set to and
    of course allow the user to change the WB to whatever they want.

    The data in the raw file has no color corrections done to it at all, it
    is just the raw data from the sensor.

    So when you are using raw you are not really correcting the color
    afterwards as much as setting it.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jun 23, 2006
    #10
  11. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Thanks for all the answers.
    > I do understand the advantage of using the RAW format to correct the WB
    > afterwards, but how does the camera initially decide what color or
    > white will be the real white?


    By guessing randomly. It turns out that auto white balance is, _in
    principle_, impossible.

    A camera cannot tell the difference between a white shirt in pink light and
    a pink shirt in white light.

    Also note that for some things, e.g. sunsets, what you want is a completely
    neutral color balance.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jun 23, 2006
    #11
  12. Bob Williams Guest

    wrote:
    > Could someone explain to me:
    > - why should white balance adjustment be done by the camera and not by
    > a software after the photo is taken. Do the captors behave differently
    > depending on the detected color temperature, or is it purely a
    > post-treatement?
    > - how the white balance captors work and how you can "help" them to get
    > the good measure.
    >
    > Thx
    > (a D200/18-200 owner)
    >

    One reason that cameras make the WB is because many people do not have
    photo editors (or don't know how to use them).
    They print directly from their memory card :-(
    Without some type of automatic WB, many images would look awful even to
    the unsophisticated eye of a novice user.
    Bob Williams
     
    Bob Williams, Jun 24, 2006
    #12
  13. "" <> writes:
    >I do understand the advantage of using the RAW format to correct the WB
    >afterwards, but how does the camera initially decide what color or
    >white will be the real white?


    It probably assumes that, on average, the scene is approximately grey in
    colour. By averaging all the pixels in the scene (or in some smaller
    white balance measurement area), then adjusting the relative gain of
    red, green, and blue until the average colour of those pixels *is* grey,
    you approximately compensate for the light colour.

    Of course, this doesn't work well if your scene isn't approximately grey
    on average, which is why fixed white balance settings are available, as
    well as the ability to white balance on a particular white or grey
    object and then save that setting.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Jun 24, 2006
    #13
  14. "Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message
    news:e7hu6s$o8d$...
    >
    > It probably assumes that, on average, the scene is approximately grey in
    > colour. By averaging all the pixels in the scene (or in some smaller
    > white balance measurement area), then adjusting the relative gain of
    > red, green, and blue until the average colour of those pixels *is* grey,
    > you approximately compensate for the light colour.


    Using both Nikon and Canon equipment, I've found problems with both when
    shooting predominantly green foliage in other than clear sunlight. Using
    custom white balance has worked well with the camera getting a reference
    from a grey subject*, but you've got to be aware of changing lighting
    conditions as well.
    (* I've actually found a use for my old £9 Expodisc.)

    --
    M Stewart
    Milton Keynes, UK
    http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
     
    Malcolm Stewart, Jun 24, 2006
    #14
  15. Alan Browne Guest

    wrote:
    > Could someone explain to me:
    > - why should white balance adjustment be done by the camera and not by
    > a software after the photo is taken. Do the captors behave differently
    > depending on the detected color temperature, or is it purely a
    > post-treatement?
    > - how the white balance captors work and how you can "help" them to get
    > the good measure.


    I ignore camera white balance completely.

    I adjust the color temperature per conditions in Kelvin (in 100°
    increments) and of course expose for desired effect.

    Do the above and camera WB is meaningless.

    Cheers,
    Alan

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 24, 2006
    #15
  16. "Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message
    news:e7hu6s$o8d$...
    > "" <> writes:
    >>I do understand the advantage of using the RAW format to
    >>correct the WB afterwards, but how does the camera initially
    >>decide what color or white will be the real white?

    >
    > It probably assumes that, on average, the scene is approximately
    > grey in colour. By averaging all the pixels in the scene (or in
    > some smaller white balance measurement area), then adjusting
    > the relative gain of red, green, and blue until the average colour
    > of those pixels *is* grey, you approximately compensate for the
    > light colour.


    In fact, there are more elaborate schemes than 'grey world' in use.

    I'm not at liberty right now to discuss in much more detail, but
    Robertson's algorithm
    (http://www.brucelindbloom.com/Eqn_XYZ_to_T.html), allows to
    characterize Kelvin temperatures for an accurately 'masked' image.

    > Of course, this doesn't work well if your scene isn't approximately
    > grey on average, which is why fixed white balance settings are
    > available, as well as the ability to white balance on a particular
    > white or grey object and then save that setting.


    Correct, an approximately correct Auto-white balance will require to
    mask-out non-contributing elements like sky, grass and human skin.
    Even then, it'll require a well 'composed' image to allow reliable
    approximation of Kelvin Color temperature.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jun 25, 2006
    #16
  17. "Bart van der Wolf" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Of course, this doesn't work well if your scene isn't approximately
    >> grey on average, which is why fixed white balance settings are
    >> available, as well as the ability to white balance on a particular
    >> white or grey object and then save that setting.

    >
    > Correct, an approximately correct Auto-white balance will require to
    > mask-out non-contributing elements like sky, grass and human skin. Even
    > then, it'll require a well 'composed' image to allow reliable
    > approximation of Kelvin Color temperature.


    Another irritation here is that the one setting I want, colorimetrically
    neutral*, doesn't appear in any camera or software I've ever seen. There are
    cases, e.g. sunsets and sunrises, where the whole concept of "white balance"
    makes no sense at all.

    *: Presumably there's a defined K temperature that corresponds to this.
    Although it probably differs with the camera. (Hmm. If the K temperature
    scale is calibrated correctly, the colorimetrically neutral setting should
    be the same across cameras. But betting that RSP gets this right for
    different cameras strikes me as unlikely.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jun 25, 2006
    #17
  18. Scott W Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Bart van der Wolf" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Of course, this doesn't work well if your scene isn't approximately
    > >> grey on average, which is why fixed white balance settings are
    > >> available, as well as the ability to white balance on a particular
    > >> white or grey object and then save that setting.

    > >
    > > Correct, an approximately correct Auto-white balance will require to
    > > mask-out non-contributing elements like sky, grass and human skin. Even
    > > then, it'll require a well 'composed' image to allow reliable
    > > approximation of Kelvin Color temperature.

    >
    > Another irritation here is that the one setting I want, colorimetrically
    > neutral*, doesn't appear in any camera or software I've ever seen. There are
    > cases, e.g. sunsets and sunrises, where the whole concept of "white balance"
    > makes no sense at all.
    >
    > *: Presumably there's a defined K temperature that corresponds to this.
    > Although it probably differs with the camera. (Hmm. If the K temperature
    > scale is calibrated correctly, the colorimetrically neutral setting should
    > be the same across cameras. But betting that RSP gets this right for
    > different cameras strikes me as unlikely.)


    I believe that sRGB using D65 as the illumination standard, and
    sunlight is pretty close to D65 so setting the white balance to a good
    white surface under sunlight would come close to what you are looking
    for. And since you can cut and past WB setting in RSE you only need
    one raw photo of a white surface to set others with.

    Adobe RGB also uses D65 so this would work there as well.

    I will admit I don't know all the ins and outs of these color spaces
    so I might be missing something.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jun 25, 2006
    #18
  19. "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:e7kqsm$9g4$...
    > "Bart van der Wolf" <> wrote:

    SNIP
    >> Correct, an approximately correct Auto-white balance will require
    >> to mask-out non-contributing elements like sky, grass and human
    >> skin. Even then, it'll require a well 'composed' image to allow
    >> reliable approximation of Kelvin Color temperature.

    >
    > Another irritation here is that the one setting I want,
    > colorimetrically neutral*, doesn't appear in any camera or software
    > I've ever seen.


    It is possible to get quite an accurate White balance reading if you
    include a reference in the image (or a test image for the sole purpose
    of providing a reference for other images shot under the same lighting
    conditions).
    Tools like WhiBal
    (http://www.rawworkflow.com/products/whibal/index.html) or the
    BabelColor White target
    (http://www.babelcolor.com/main_level/White_Target.htm) are very
    usable.

    > There are cases, e.g. sunsets and sunrises, where the whole concept
    > of "white balance" makes no sense at all.


    Well, since we usually want to convey a sensation rather than accurate
    color balance, it's a valid procedure to deviate from correct into
    pleasing color-balance. Having a 'correct' starting point takes a lot
    of guesswork out of the equation, even if we deliberately want to
    deviate form it.

    > *: Presumably there's a defined K temperature that corresponds to
    > this. Although it probably differs with the camera. (Hmm. If the K
    > temperature scale is calibrated correctly, the colorimetrically
    > neutral setting should be the same across cameras. But betting that
    > RSP gets this right for different cameras strikes me as unlikely.)


    RSE/RSP has an issue with the displayed number for Kelvin, when
    compared to other methods of determination. White-balance clicking
    works as it should though, so my suggestion is to include a reference
    in one image and copy that balance (K + tint) to others taken under
    similar conditions (also works with other Raw converters).

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jun 25, 2006
    #19
  20. "Bart van der Wolf" <> wrote:
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >> "Bart van der Wolf" <> wrote:

    > SNIP
    >>> Correct, an approximately correct Auto-white balance will require to
    >>> mask-out non-contributing elements like sky, grass and human skin. Even
    >>> then, it'll require a well 'composed' image to allow reliable
    >>> approximation of Kelvin Color temperature.

    >>
    >> Another irritation here is that the one setting I want, colorimetrically
    >> neutral*, doesn't appear in any camera or software I've ever seen.

    >
    > It is possible to get quite an accurate White balance reading if you
    > include a reference in the image (or a test image for the sole purpose of
    > providing a reference for other images shot under the same lighting
    > conditions).
    > Tools like WhiBal (http://www.rawworkflow.com/products/whibal/index.html)
    > or the BabelColor White target
    > (http://www.babelcolor.com/main_level/White_Target.htm) are very usable.


    In the cases under discussion here, I don't want the white balanced; I want
    an _uninterpreted_ rendition of the color in the scene as seen by the
    camera.

    >> There are cases, e.g. sunsets and sunrises, where the whole concept of
    >> "white balance" makes no sense at all.

    >
    > Well, since we usually want to convey a sensation rather than accurate
    > color balance,


    This is unlike you: you've missed the point. A sunset is a light source, so
    "white balancing" makes no sense whatsoever. None, zilch, zero, nil.

    > it's a valid procedure to deviate from correct into pleasing
    > color-balance. Having a 'correct' starting point takes a lot of guesswork
    > out of the equation, even if we deliberately want to deviate form it.


    That's why I want to know what the "colorimetrically neutral" color
    temperature is...

    >> *: Presumably there's a defined K temperature that corresponds to this.
    >> Although it probably differs with the camera. (Hmm. If the K temperature
    >> scale is calibrated correctly, the colorimetrically neutral setting
    >> should be the same across cameras. But betting that RSP gets this right
    >> for different cameras strikes me as unlikely.)

    >
    > RSE/RSP has an issue with the displayed number for Kelvin, when compared
    > to other methods of determination. White-balance clicking works as it
    > should though, so my suggestion is to include a reference in one image and
    > copy that balance (K + tint) to others taken under similar conditions
    > (also works with other Raw converters).


    Ah. That's interesting. So far I've been ignoring tint. Sounds as though I
    can't. In the general case, assuming a completely arbitrary light source, a
    single slider isn't enough, of course.

    By the way, I've never seen "white balance clicking" (or any other clicking
    with an eydropper, for that matter) do anything other than produce a
    completely insane color (or white/black point, contrast, or whatever)
    setting. So I don't click. Ever.

    What I do is to find something close to a neutral gray in an image and
    adjust the white balance manually while watching the RGB values. (Living in
    Tokyo, there's usually a lot of neutral gray.)

    Of course, much of the time, there will be parts of an image that are in
    full sun, parts in open shade, and parts in deep shade, and each will need a
    different color balance, so the final color balance almost always is a
    compromise of some sort.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jun 25, 2006
    #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. Chip Gallo

    Sony 717 with Warmcard White Balance

    Chip Gallo, Jul 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    406
    Chip Gallo
    Jul 19, 2003
  2. Mark C

    10D White Balance and color temperature

    Mark C, Jul 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,522
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 28, 2003
  3. jeff liss
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    540
    Andrew
    Sep 5, 2003
  4. Steve Cutchen

    Custom White Balance: Gray Card or White Card?

    Steve Cutchen, Oct 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,687
  5. 88059355

    Life Balance Coaching: Balance Work And Life Like A Pro

    88059355, Jan 6, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    645
Loading...

Share This Page