Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Feedback Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Post-screening: Courtman  
User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2803 times:

I've had a rejection which is slightly puzzling me, so I've re-edited the image from scratch to see if I can get a different eye on it.

The rejection was "over-exposed, dark, contrast". Here is the original image:
http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w106/adriancourt/N23FK2.jpg

I've re-edited it from scratch and come up with this. Would this be a better image to submit, or can somebody point me in the right direction (even if it is the trash can!) on what I should do! Here is my re-edit:
http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w106/adriancourt/N23FK07Jun113.jpg

Cheers!

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10239 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2797 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well, for starters, the new image is significantly rotated clockwise from the original. Looks unlevel now.

I can see the overexposed and contrast (though both look pretty minor to me). Reducing the exposure/brightness a bit might solve the contrast as well (I assume it was rejected for harsh contrast). The new one looks OK to me exposure-wise.

Dark I can't see, though could be the harsh contrast contributing to that.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2781 times:

Quoting Courtman (Thread starter):
I've re-edited it from scratch and come up with this.

Exposure is better with this one, but contrast is still flat. Level is also different as Vik has pointed out.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10239 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2779 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 2):
Exposure is better with this one, but contrast is still flat.

Wow, I apologize if I threw you off by thinking the rejection was for harsh contrast!

I just assumed, given that it was paired with overexposed and dark.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2765 times:

Thanks guys, I'd missed the rotation when I re-edited it. This should be better on the rotation and the exposure, but how is the contrast now?

Edit 3:
http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w106/adriancourt/N23FK07Jun113.jpg

Edit 4:
http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w106/adriancourt/N23FK07Jun114.jpg


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2744 times:

Quoting Courtman (Reply 4):
This should be better on the rotation and the exposure, but how is the contrast now?

#4 is better.


User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2588 times:

Hi, had a dark/contrast reject on this image with the comment "A bit less contrast is needed. dark contrast personal". Is this better now do people think?

Original:
http://www.peanutwood.net/aircraft/n808pc_08072011_1.jpg

Re-edit:
http://www.peanutwood.net/aircraft/n808pc_08072011_2.jpg

Cheers.


User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2586 times:

And one more "dark reject" that I think I've improved but just want to make sure:

Original:
http://www.peanutwood.net/aircraft/n820dl_19072011_1.jpg

Re-edit:
http://www.peanutwood.net/aircraft/n820dl_19072011_2.jpg

Ta!


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10239 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2578 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Courtman (Reply 6):

To me, the first one doesn't really look over-contrasted, just dark (but I could be wrong!). Your new edit looks a bit flat, and still a bit dark.

It could be that just increasing the brightness would fix both issues, as opposed to increasing brightness and decreasing contrast. Couldn't tell ya without trying it myself, though.

Quoting Courtman (Reply 7):

Still looks a bit dark to me, and possibly a bit flat. I like that shot, though!



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2567 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 8):
To me, the first one doesn't really look over-contrasted, just dark (but I could be wrong!). Your new edit looks a bit flat, and still a bit dark.

No Vik, you got it about right. Adrian, you've brought the contrast down too much and not done anything about the darkness. See the right hand side here:

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/4998/n808pc080720111.jpg

Quoting Courtman (Reply 7):
And one more "dark reject" that I think I've improved but just want to make sure:

Better, but quality is still borderline.


User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2547 times:

Thanks guys, seeing the contrast difference on Dana's image helped no end on the Otter. What do you think to this one then?

http://www.peanutwood.net/aircraft/n808pc_08072011_3.jpg


User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2530 times:

And a last edit on the BE20, any better?

http://www.peanutwood.net/aircraft/n820dl_19072011_3.jpg

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 8):
I like that shot, though!

Thanks! This is the view from my office, actually took this shot through the tower window in the pouring rain. The view is good, although mostly of light training aircraft. The few jet/turboprop movements we get brighten things up a bit!


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10239 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2527 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Courtman (Reply 10):

Looks better to me.

Quoting Courtman (Reply 11):

Looks a bit too bright now. There's also a red halo around parts of the aircraft - on the top of the fuse, on the edges of the flaps/ailerons, etc. I don't know what that's from, but it wasn't as obvious on the last edits.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2513 times:

Quoting Courtman (Reply 10):
What do you think to this one then?

Looks better.

Quoting Courtman (Reply 11):
And a last edit on the BE20, any better?

Better, but...

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 12):
There's also a red halo around parts of the aircraft - on the top of the fuse, on the edges of the flaps/ailerons, etc. I don't know what that's from

That's chromatic aberration, a flaw common when cheaper lenses are pushed to their extremes, either in terms of aperture or focal length. For a.net, it is grouped with the similar purple fringing and considered a 'quality' rejection. The good news is it can typically be fixed with software, especially if working from a RAW file.


User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2506 times:

Hi Dana

The chromatic aberration is interesting - and the lens I used for that shot was anything but cheap! I've had some good shots with that lens since I got it, so I'm thinking I've done something daft in Photoshop to create that problem. I'm going to go back to the RAW and start again.

Shot with my Sigma 50mm f1.4:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Adrian Court
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Adrian Court



User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

It's definitely ca, as it's right where you would expect it to be, a high-contrast border. You're right, that Sigma doesn't have a reputation for strong ca, so it might be due to your editing. There is a feature in ACR that removes ca, but if you have it set improperly, it can actually add it. It is visible in the earlier versions, just not as strong, so I would guess the ca has always been there, just whatever you did with the last edit made it a lot more apparent. As always, I can take a look at the original if you want.

User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10239 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2501 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Courtman (Reply 14):

I've seen it with my (cheap) Canon 18-55 IS. But it doesn't appear in all shots. Recently, I've been shooting side-ons looking up from the In'n'Out by LAX, generally in the evening close to sunset. The sun is directly in front of the airplanes, offset to my side by a few degrees. I've seen quite a bit of cyan/red haloing (I'm surprised that "haloing" is recognized as a word by Firefox!), which I've had to remove in editing. I've noticed that sharpening can bring them out even more, as sharpening tends to induce halos.

If you remove them from the JPEGs in Photoshop (using Filter --> Distort --> Lens Correction), beware that it seems to remove a pixel or so from the image on two of the image edges as well. You'll have to re-crop slightly to avoid having white borders on those sides after that. I don't remember if the tool in ACR does that - not sure I've tried to remove them in RAW.

Like Dana said, though, if you use too strong CA removal, it'll actually go past removal and add halos.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2500 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 16):
Recently, I've been shooting side-ons looking up from the In'n'Out by LAX

You get far more glamorous photo spots than me in my tower at Cranfield, UK! I'm looking at the original RAW for this file and there is some CA obvious in that, I'm trying to edit it out. I think it could be a combination of shooting through the tower window (I was controlling this aircraft so it was very much a point-and-shoot shot!), the rain, and the background. I've sent Dana the raw file as well - he always comes back with good advice for me. I'll see what I come up with as well, as you say I was quite pleased with this shot despite it's hurriedness.


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2493 times:

Quoting Courtman (Reply 17):
I've sent Dana the raw file as well

Having seen the original now, I can say this one probably won't be fixable. You can see I was right when I said

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 13):
a flaw common when cheaper lenses are pushed to their extremes, either in terms of aperture or focal length.

The image was shot wide open at f/1.4, where all sorts of nasty things (softness, vignetting, low contrast, chromatic aberrations) manifest themselves, even in your mid-range lens. Stopping down a bit should fix the problem(s) to a large extent.


User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2195 times:

Time to dip back into post-screening, I'm going through some of my rejected images and seeing what if anything I can do with them. One shot I've had rejected twice is this American Airlines 777-200. First reject was "dark" so I brightened it a little and resubmitted. The latest is "Still dark, poor lighting dark contrast personal".

Here is the second reject:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20111208_y1322609843.7537n786an_10082011_2.jpg

And here is my rework for the third attempt. I think this looks about right, but I'm not sure enough:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/y1323776361.2282n786an_10082011_3.jpg

Thanks for the advice!


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2185 times:

Quoting Courtman (Reply 19):
And here is my rework for the third attempt. I think this looks about right, but I'm not sure enough:

Contrast is still pretty harsh. Try something like I've done on the left side here:

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/6360/y13237763612282n786an10.jpg

The light is not great, so you might not ever be able to get something satisfactory out of it.


User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2175 times:

Fourth time lucky, I've kind of gone back to scratch on this using your image above as a template:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/s1323816885.5387n786an_10082011_4.jpg

On a technical note, why is the lighting not so great on this shot but was OK for my shot of N839MH - am I right in thinking the polished fuselage is causing the issues somewhat?


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2170 times:

Quoting Courtman (Reply 21):
Fourth time lucky, I've kind of gone back to scratch

Needs to be just a touch brighter, but not much else you can do I think.

Quoting Courtman (Reply 21):
On a technical note, why is the lighting not so great on this shot but was OK for my shot of N839MH - am I right in thinking the polished fuselage is causing the issues somewhat?

Looks like the sun was partially blocked by clouds in this one, so the background is just as bright, but the subject is much duller.


User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

Hi all. Time to crank up my post-screening thread that has been quiet for a while. I had a reject on a shot Dana pre-screened as OK with the comment "cyan tint":

Original:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7063/6952189695_8376ef0f2b_o.jpg

Here is my re-edit, I've toned down the cyan a bit. Is this better?
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/t1332189798.7983a6edi_2_10082011_5.jpg

Cheers!


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1824 times:

Quoting Courtman (Reply 23):
Here is my re-edit, I've toned down the cyan a bit. Is this better?

Yes, looks better.


User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1830 times:

Thanks Dana, I thought so - but hadn't spotted it when I put it in for pre-screening. One more quick post query if you can please?

This was rejected for "soft" but was with my old Tamron 18-270 lens (which was on the soft side of soft at the best of times!!). I've added another level of sharpening - any better or not worth troubling the queue?

Before:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120319_g1331632204.9582n78005_11072011_1.jpg

After:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/z1332192800.3487n78005_11072011_2.jpg


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 26, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1826 times:

Better, but can still see it get softer toward the edges (see the wingtips and tail). New one would stand a better chance, but it would still only be a chance.

User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1840 times:

I shall consign it to the skip, you're right about the soft edges - that was a flaw on the Tamron. I mainly like this shot for the condensation in the engine, but not gonna block up the queue for something risky at best I think. Thanks for looking!

User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1756 times:

Hi, got this one rejected with a note "a bit less contrast needed" (lots more useful notes like this recently, very helpful and thanks to the screeners for taking the time with them). I've dropped the contrast a bit - is this any better do you think?

Original:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120328_u1332201290.0734gurru_21122011_3.jpg

Edit:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/s1333355678.252gurru_21122011_4.jpg


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 29, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1746 times:

A bit better, yes. You should probably also include a remark that the underside is actually painted black.

User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1600 times:

Hi

A busy-ish (although not as busy as it should have been at work with the Olympics) and I've had no time recently to play with pictures. I'm still trying to get my 100th image in the database, and have had a couple of rejects on this BA 77W. The last reject was for over-exposure on the nose, and a green tint. I've very slightly toned the nose down, and the tint I think I've got right but I'm rubbish at getting this right, how does it look to you all now?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/p1346407851.3606gstbe_22052012_3.jpg

Regards,
Adrian
 


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 31, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1562 times:

Quoting Courtman (Reply 30):
how does it look to you all now?

Still a touch bright, and whatever you did to adjust the exposure on the nose has left a halo around it.


User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1541 times:

Hi Dana. Thanks for that, hope you are well. You amaze me with what you can spot on these pictures, I can't see any haloing at all but believe you as the method I used (lasso tool and then feather) would probably do it - you just have much better eyes than me!

I've gone back to the RAW and reduced the overall exposure a bit, I think this may be better...?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/x1346533135.2844gstbe_22052012_4.jpg


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 33, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1507 times:

Quoting Courtman (Reply 32):
I think this may be better...?

Can't say if better as the previous has been removed; this one is a bit bright, soft around the nose, and has a magenta cast. These problems are minor and should be fixable.


User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1005 times:

Hi Dana

Well I've gotten my hundredth image in, now going through some of the rejects I got in that batch as well. This one has puzzled me a bit, the reject was "low contrast contrast personal":

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120927_h1347923331.0056geupc_22052012_1.jpg

I've re-edited it and increased the contrast a bit, but am reluctant to do too much - to my eye the contrast looks OK, the tyres are black etc. What do you think and what should I use to determine the correct contrast?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/k1349216008.9281geupc_22052012_2.jpg


User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1004 times:

One other to compare, taken under poor light (it was a July morning in Britain, sunshine anyone?) but first in database and one of the Olympic jets. The reject was for "some soft parts soft dirty personal" and this is the rejected image:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120927_e1347830083.5637n3877_27072012_3.jpg

I found the dust spots easily enough, not sure how I missed them, but wonder now if the sharpening is too much? I've added half a dose of unsharp mask, but it looks too sharp to me (as do many images I do on here!):

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/y1349216722.2943n3877_27072012_4.jpg

Cheers!


User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1006 times:

And last but not least a Ryanair B738 rejected for "Backlit dark contrast personal". I can fix the dark and contrast, although I'm not sure that the contrast is too far off (see the BA Custard A319 comment above!!) but is the backlit a definite no-go? It wasn't backlit, but the sun was coming from my right shoulder and hitting the nose of the aircraft on final.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120927_l1347883036.057eiekf_31082012_1.jpg

Thanks for the advice.


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 37, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 993 times:

Quoting Courtman (Reply 34):
This one has puzzled me a bit, the reject was "low contrast contrast personal":

Looks ok now.

Quoting Courtman (Reply 35):
One other to compare,

Poor light, borderline dark rejection.

Quoting Courtman (Reply 36):
And last but not least a Ryanair B738 rejected for "Backlit dark contrast personal"
Quoting Courtman (Reply 36):
It wasn't backlit,

Backlit in this case just another way of saying the light is on the wrong side, which it is. As such, there is not much you can do to fix it, so best to leave this one.


User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 931 times:

Hi Dana

Thanks for the advice - the first two went through OK on the re-edits above, plus two other rejects. I've left the Ryanair one.

Of the 5 in the queue I only had 1 reject and that was this:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121012_z1349215556.6222gwiwi_20062012_2.jpg

The reject was for motive: Photo taken too low (we can't see the wheels).

Now, even if I stood above the aircraft you wouldn't see the wheels as the grass completely covered them as she sat at Ascot for the afternoon.I agree the angle is lower than normal, but you get a good perspective of the heli and the rotor blades and I put it forward as it was a little different, but shouldn't have missed any of the normal parameters. The previous rejection on this was purely for dust spots, which I corrected.

This was screened by a trainee. I don't like appealing but do you think it would be worth an appeal in this case and with the facts above?

Ta!


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 39, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 923 times:

Quoting Courtman (Reply 38):
do you think it would be worth an appeal

Yes, you can appeal. Grass is allowed to block the wheels, as long as it is unavoidable.


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 40, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 911 times:

In the future, please write your own appeal comments, and don't just put "I'm appealing because dlowwa told me to". It helps if it looks like you've actually put some thought into the appeal process. Also, my opinion is just that, mine; whoever handles the appeal will come to their own conclusion.

User currently offlineCourtman From UK - England, joined Feb 2011, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 906 times:

Oh sorry, I did put my own comments but thought from reading the appeals that they wanted me to discuss it in the forums first and decide that way. Thanks for the advice, I don't like to appeal too often (I've only done it once before) so not to sure of the best ways around it.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Post-screening: Courtman
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format