Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
  

Archive 2012 · Three secrets
  
 
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Three secrets


This is actually named Cecret Lake, and is near Alta Utah. I took these yesterday and would like your opinions on them good or bad. My goal is for a realistic image of what I saw.




Cecret Lake 1

  Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III    TS-E17mm f/4L lens    17mm    f/8.0    1/500s    400 ISO    -0.7 EV  






Cecret Lake 2

  Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III    TS-E17mm f/4L lens    17mm    f/8.0    1/400s    400 ISO    0.0 EV  






Cecret Lake 3

  Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III    TS-E17mm f/4L lens    17mm    f/8.0    1/125s    100 ISO    -0.7 EV  




Jul 25, 2012 at 04:09 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Three secrets


ben egbert wrote:
My goal is for a realistic image of what I saw.


Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron.
I think I get what you mean @ believable interpretation vs. artistic representation.


The first two are nice for me, but the third one leaves me with a lack of focal point / viewing direction due to its strong reflective symmetry. Diggn' the leading lines (implied) and the interactive tonal values to draw the depth.



Jul 25, 2012 at 04:14 PM
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Three secrets


RustyBug wrote:
Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron.

The first two are nice for me, but the third one leaves me with a lack of focal point / viewing direction due to its strong symmetry.



Thanks Rusty. And you are correct, we humans are not perfect observers in the first place. Adams never liked color because it was unrealistic color in his day and probably still is to some degree. But I never liked B&W because I see in color and strive to get what I see in person. But then I wear polarized glasses so I do see a bit differently than my natural vision. I suspect no two people see the same scene exactly alike.

How to process back to what we saw given the flatness of a raw image is a real problem. Its a matter of judgement and knowing when to stop.

I agree on the last image, it is the weakest of the three. It is what I saw, and with a 17mm lens was the best composition I could get. It needed wider, or further back from the lake, but then the foreground was not so great.




Jul 25, 2012 at 04:23 PM
Camperjim
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Three secrets


It is a good thing I looked at the images before reading any of the text. I picked #3 as my favorite and might not have done that if I read the comments. I am a sucker for the mirrored symmetry. I also like the curved shapes and the little cluster of rocks to add foreground interest. I guess there is no strong center of interest but none seems needed as there is plenty to look at in the scene.

All three are great and I find it hard to pick a favorite.



Jul 25, 2012 at 04:34 PM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Three secrets


on a lousy work monitor, so.....
always that issue what we saw, how we remember it, how we want to remember, how it can be approximated in 2d representation

1. Beautiful scene. Colors are appealing (non-calibrated monitor), detail looks good. I wonder if the darker reflections were darker. Overall, looks realistic.
2. Love the foreground flowers, the rocks pointing into the water. I would consider this realistic as well. On a different level, I personally would prefer a tad less sky. Interestingly but perhaps less effectively, a square crop, taking from the sky, might work here too, although I think the original proportions are better.
3. Interesting, not as strong comp but quite nice. Feels like the white cloud reflection on the bottom is a bit bright and the darker reflections may be a bit bright. They look to be almost the same luminosity as the actual hillside.

Scott



Jul 25, 2012 at 04:36 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Three secrets


+1 @ Scott ... nicely detailed.

In the vein of "realistic" ... I think Scott's point @ the reflections being "too bright" are very salient.

Given that the water is a prominent aspect of the spatial representation ... reducing its exposure may have not only the gain of realism ... but also of depth enhancement of the scene.

Edited on Jul 25, 2012 at 04:59 PM · View previous versions



Jul 25, 2012 at 04:39 PM
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Three secrets


Camperjim wrote:
It is a good thing I looked at the images before reading any of the text. I picked #3 as my favorite and might not have done that if I read the comments. I am a sucker for the mirrored symmetry. I also like the curved shapes and the little cluster of rocks to add foreground interest. I guess there is no strong center of interest but none seems needed as there is plenty to look at in the scene.

All three are great and I find it hard to pick a favorite.


Thanks Jim, you know what I am after.



Jul 25, 2012 at 04:48 PM
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Three secrets


sbeme wrote:
on a lousy work monitor, so.....
always that issue what we saw, how we remember it, how we want to remember, how it can be approximated in 2d representation

1. Beautiful scene. Colors are appealing (non-calibrated monitor), detail looks good. I wonder if the darker reflections were darker. Overall, looks realistic.
2. Love the foreground flowers, the rocks pointing into the water. I would consider this realistic as well. On a different level, I personally would prefer a tad less sky. Interestingly but perhaps less effectively, a square crop, taking from the sky, might work here too, although I think the original proportions
...Show more


Very nice comments. I already cropped that second image and was tempted for more. I don't do many verticals because my eyes are side by side and I have no natural intuition for verticals. But some scenes just seem to need it. I almost never use a 2/3 or narrower vertical crop, I usually go for 5/7 or 4/5 for verticals.

I don't have a polarizer for my 17TSE (one is on the way). The water reflection polarized the sky in the reflection and leaves the un-polarized sky itself looking different.

When my wife viewed this, it took her a while to see that the light/dark transition on the water was a reflected sky. This is probably disconcerting.



Jul 25, 2012 at 04:55 PM
Charlie Shugart
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Three secrets


Ben- like the others, I wasn't there, so this is just an IMO .
I gave my attention to your first image:
The colors looked a bit flat to me (I think the light that day WAS a bit flat), so I fiddled a little:
1. Auto color.
2. +5 brightness.
3. +5 contrast.
Subtle change, true, but it looks to me as though the "flatness" is mostly gone.
Maybe a bit more would be a bit better.
Charlie

Here's my quick edit of #1







Jul 25, 2012 at 07:55 PM
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Three secrets


Hi Charlie. Thanks for the look and the redo. I just replaced my computer and my old Xrite is not compatible (got it working with a patch, but don't trust it).

Until my new one arrives, I am posting without knowing how close it is. It looked ok to my eyes on the questionable system, but who knows?

Your redo looks very good. I also thought this one was flatter than the other two.





Jul 25, 2012 at 08:23 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Three secrets


sbeme wrote:
on a lousy work monitor, so.....
always that issue what we saw, how we remember it, how we want to remember, how it can be approximated in 2d representation

1. Beautiful scene. Colors are appealing (non-calibrated monitor), detail looks good. I wonder if the darker reflections were darker. Overall, looks realistic.
2. Love the foreground flowers, the rocks pointing into the water. I would consider this realistic as well. On a different level, I personally would prefer a tad less sky. Interestingly but perhaps less effectively, a square crop, taking from the sky, might work here too, although I think the original proportions
...Show more


I started to make these changes and got confused. The bottom half of the reflection, is darker than the real part by a good amount, at least on my monitor. An easy change would be to add a layer with multiply and do a gradient mask on the reflection. Or perhaps paint it in.

It also occurred to me that just the sky part of the reflection is too bright.

But in the end, I think the real problem here is that the scene needed a wider lens or standing further back.

If you clarify, I will give it go.




Jul 26, 2012 at 12:17 AM
BrianJ
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Three secrets


Ben -

Not having been there, it is hard to actually know what you "saw", on the other hand, to me, the first image looks more "realistic". The second has more interest, with the focused flowers in the foreground, but to me isn't as natural since it is all in focus. The third seems to have the reflection more saturated than the scene reflected, making it appear the least realistic to me.




Jul 26, 2012 at 12:18 AM
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Three secrets


BrianJ wrote:
Ben -

Not having been there, it is hard to actually know what you "saw", on the other hand, to me, the first image looks more "realistic". The second has more interest, with the focused flowers in the foreground, but to me isn't as natural since it is all in focus. The third seems to have the reflection more saturated than the scene reflected, making it appear the least realistic to me.




Thanks for the comments, it helps to hear what others see even if they were not there.

On sharpness, I work hard to get every single pixel sharp, so I take it as a compliment. I dislike selective focus in landscapes. Works fine with birds and probably portraits. I even get irritated when I see the technique used on TV. I know my eye scans and changed focus as it moves around but everything in focus is my memory of the scene.

On the last image, I processed the image globally without any special treatment to the reflection. I think it was the natural polarization of the water that made for the higher saturation look. This might have been a scene where a polarizer adjusted to balance the reflection and sky would have helped. Its not easy to add a polarizer to a 17TSE, but I will have one soon. I am not sure how to go about fixing this in post.

Here is the raw file saved with no adjustments. Note, ACR6 was used to pull up shadows in the first post. It does an amazing job. I have lighter and darker versions had I wanted to blend, but found no need of it when staring with an image that was exposed to the right as this was.

Feel free to play with this one.








Jul 26, 2012 at 12:30 AM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Three secrets


Ben,

You mention "every pixel" sharp ... are you using tilt with your 17L TS-E ... or are these "straight" 17mm?

Here's a stab @ it with a bit more contrast between the reflected scene in the water and the actual scene. Might be a bit dark for taste, but hopefully it illustrates the concept.

As always, S&P to taste.







Jul 26, 2012 at 03:24 AM
cgardner
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Three secrets


ben egbert wrote:
On sharpness, I work hard to get every single pixel sharp, so I take it as a compliment. I dislike selective focus in landscapes. Works fine with birds and probably portraits. I even get irritated when I see the technique used on TV. I know my eye scans and changed focus as it moves around but everything in focus is my memory of the scene.


I view the challenge of composing a still photo for viewing by others as being a process of telling a story they will find interesting. That said I also think that a still photo is one of the most difficult of all the storytelling mediums — verbal, written, visual —because real life experiences aren't like a collection of postcards they are fluid and dynamic and accompanied by sounds and movement a still photo can't capture.

Just putting camera to eye edits the in-person experience and limits it to the FOV of the lens and proportions of the frame being used for the capture. One of the first decisions I make is whether to make the composition static or dynamic.

Do I want the viewer to focus on one area to the exclusion of all others with the same "tunnel vision" the brain creates when focusing attention on a object (static), or do I want them to wander and explore the entire frame (dynamic). If the latter, do I want them to wander aimlessly without map and compass, or do I want to create visual clues that lead them to a specific destination in the photo in "connect-the-dots" fashion.

If the intent isn't to have the viewer wander aimlessly around the photo that implies there is some destination in mind were I want to viewer to gravitate towards and dwell on, a focal point. A characteristic of static compositions is a strongly contrasting focal point. It is the attraction of the contrast in that one area in comparison with the rest of the content in the frame which attracts and holds the viewer's eye with gravitational attraction much like a black hole in space. On a light background single dark object will create that effect quite literally. On a dark background a single light toned object will have the same gravitational pull.

What affects the "gravitational" pull the focal point exerts is the degree to which the focal point contrasts. For example if you were to start with a black dot on a white page the attraction would be strong. But if you were to gradually change the tone ot the dot and make it progressively lighter the attraction would be less strong to the point where focal point and background become so similar there is no attraction at all. No clue to the viewer regarding what in the photo is most important. That same contrast gradient dynamic can be used to make one focal point subordinate to another and lead the eye of the viewer predictably.

A very effective strategy for a conventional facial portrait is to highlight the front of the face on a darker background with the clothing darker that the shaded parts of the face. Why is it effective? Because it makes the front of the face were you want the attention of the viewer focused contrast the most with the background. Using a dark background when the subject is wearing a white shirt isn't a very effective strategy because the shirt contrasts more and will attract more attention than the face. The face will will likely be seen first, but the distraction will pull the viewer's eye off it.

The center 2° of our field of view contains the color sensing cones. The rest of the retina is covered with green sensitve rod cells which are 3000x more sensitive. That's the physiological reason why when looking at anything our brain only focuses attentiion on an arc about twice the width of a thumb held at arms length. For example eading this your brain is only focusing on >>>>>> this word <<<<<<< and tuning out the rest. It constructs the complete thought contained in all these words short term memory.

The fact the rods in the periperhy are more sensitive to light explains why in a photo with a dark background and bright focal point in the center, other bright areas near the edges of the frame are so distracting. For example, include the hands in a portrait and while looking at the face with the center of focus the contrast of the hands nags at the brain to go look at them making the hands an unwanted distracton from the face if they aren't doing something interesting that adds interest to the story.







Without him holding the camera the brightly contrasting arm and hand would be a distraction. But with the camera the arm is an effective leading line pointing to the camera.

One of differences between composing portrait vs. a scenic landscape is that the composition usually has more than one focal point simply because there's so much stuff in the shot. The storytelling challenge in a scenic is conveying to the viewer which content is most important. Without that dynamic of making one focal point dominant and others subbordinate the viewer will have no clue where to look next in the photo and wander aimlessly not "connecting the dots" of the visually narrative in a meaningful way.

There are various compositional techniques that can be used to guide the viewer but tonal gradients are one of the most effective. That's the cause and effect underlying a vignette. Darkening the edges of a dark background shot a bit more than the center sends a subliminal clue to the viewer of the photo that the content in the middle is more important. If the photo has multiple focal points on a dark background the viewer is more likely to move from darker to lighter and lighter to darker. In a photo with an overall light background such as a snow or beach scene the contrast dynamic is flipped and the attractive force is from lighter to darker. So if you were to opt to vignette a light toned photo it would be more effective to make the edges lighter not darker than the center.

A vignette sends a clue to the brain of the viewer which is accustomed to "tunneling" in on what is interesting and tuning out the rest that the more sharply focused stuff in the center is more important than what is on the extreme edges of the frame. Viewers will naturally gravitate to the center of a photo when first looking at it. What a vignette does is clues their brain to go back to the center its more interesting when they later wander back out towards the edges.

A dark mat around a landscape with sky has a similar effect. The contrast of the brighter sky inevitiably pulls the eye up to the top of the frame. Hitting a darker mat with the peripheral vision on the way up sends a subliminal message to the viewer's brain to put on the brakes and go back down for a second look at the darker foreground.

Ben will likely reject this idea, but I find blurring the edges of a scenic has the same effect of guiding the eye in a composition by sending a subliminal clue that that area of the photo is less important than the sharper center. But it's only effective if the blurring is so slight it's not noticed consciously. The same is true for tonal vignettes. If the viewer notices them to the point of commenting on them one way or the other the vignette has become an counter-productive distracton.

I usually compose photos with around a contrasting focal point where I want the viewer to find and dwell on, ideally as the first and last thing fixated on when looking at the photo. To get the viewer to go back for a second look at the focal point in a complex scene I use every composition trick I know, including darkening and very slightly blurring the edges so by comparison the center seems more interesting, and surrounding the photo with a mat so the periphery around the image isn't distracting and pulling attention out. But I try to do all of that only to the degree it's not noticed. The goal is to create a subliminal instinctive reaction which manipulates the viewer's eye path in ways they are not conciously aware of.

Most lenses vignette and blur edges to some degree naturally due to their optical properties. The degree to which they do it can be noticed when lens correction is applied in Photoshop. One of the reasons vintage lenses give photos a more organic look is because before computer aided design and exotic elements the manually engineered lenses tended to have more edge fall-off and astigmatism.






Jul 26, 2012 at 12:08 PM
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Three secrets


RustyBug wrote:
Ben,

You mention "every pixel" sharp ... are you using tilt with your 17L TS-E ... or are these "straight" 17mm?

Here's a stab @ it with a bit more contrast between the reflected scene in the water and the actual scene. Might be a bit dark for taste, but hopefully it illustrates the concept.

As always, S&P to taste.


The DOF at 17mm f8 is so great that I don't need tilt for a shot like this. I did use tilt on the vertical with flowers as they were close enough to touch (probably the shot in question). I also used shift in the above shot to keep the camera level and shift up enough to get some sky. I also have a vertical of this scene.

On your redo, I see what you are doing here. I assume it was a quick pass as the darkening mask on the sky overlaps the mountain. I tried a ND grad here but it did not fit the horizon well so I took it off.

By the way, I appreciate your doing this. My question in this post was to find out how well I am meeting my objective of realism. But as the raw shot indicates, what comes out of the camera is far from the human view of the scene. Retooling the shot to compensate for that is what I seek. You gave me some ideas.


Edited on Jul 26, 2012 at 02:31 PM · View previous versions



Jul 26, 2012 at 02:01 PM
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Three secrets


cgardner wrote:
I view the challenge of composing a still photo for viewing by others as being a process of telling a story they will find interesting. That said I also think that a still photo is one of the most difficult of all the storytelling mediums — verbal, written, visual —because real life experiences aren't like a collection of postcards they are fluid and dynamic and accompanied by sounds and movement a still photo can't capture.

Just putting camera to eye edits the in-person experience and limits it to the FOV of the lens and proportions of the frame being
...Show more

To your core question. I do not wish to guide the viewer to any specific place within the scene. I want the viewer to scan the scene just as I do when there and just as I view prints made by others where I get to 10 inches which is where my best vision is. The scene itself is the subject. The story is the place taken in its entirety. My eye adjusts focus and brightness as it scans, I want my image to be adjusted the same way. But if I go all the way it will be branded HDR, so I back off a bit until this look gets more acceptance.

My lenses have some drop off in the extreme corners. They are the best I can find and could I find better lenses, I would have them. I may not see that blade of grass at the extreme corner in person, but if it is blurred when viewing the print it looks terrible.

My notion of composition is to capture a scene that first grabbed my attention for its beauty or awe. I have found that my vision without turning my head or moving my eyes is approximately 28mm on ff. If I scan with my eyes it is wider than any lens I own, but not as high. 16/9 seems to be a good aspect ratio. On this last shot, 17 was not wide enough to get the scene I wanted but I did not want to make a pano. I was too close to do one without overlap distortion. My normal view is with my head level so horizons tend to often fall on center. I do not tilt my head to get rule of thirds. But I try to include all of something like a lake or mountain or enough that it does not look cut off. Reflections are often centered because the lens is not wide enough to prevent it without a cut off. I have a 14mm on order.

If there is ugly stuff in the scene, I move it. I tossed some brush out of the water in the first image, and pruned some weeds in the flower shot. Otherwise I relocate.






Jul 26, 2012 at 02:24 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Three secrets


Ben,

Gotcha ... good to hear. Just wondering @ tilt vs. stopping down farther than necessary.

+100 @ camera doesn't do it justice and it needs "assistance" to render it conceptually to what we experienced. As you have pointed out (which I aspire also) the desire for realism ... I extend that to "plausible realism". It may not have been exactly that ... but it certainly could have been given the ever changing lighting conditions of such a cloud filled sky for example.

As to the redo ... the mountain tops were a touch of "artistic representation" ... @ cloud filtered lighting to try to give it a bit more definition / depth / modeling / etc. A more detailed study would have ensured that the angles of lighting and areas of darkening were appropriately correct ... but hopefully people get the gist @ the diff without losing the concept for the nit ... but I certainly understand your preferences otherwise.

I knew it was a bit of a departure, but this is only for illustration of concept ... not to be confused with trying to say it is right or wrong. To that end, it does get presented a little "over the top" @ times. Anyway, good stuff ... we're all just trying to offer up "food for thought" because you've got some nice captures here. Cool to hear that you've got "some ideas" as a takeaway ... cause that's kinda the whole point @ this forum. Looking forward to seeing how you incorporate your ideas.

BTW ... I used shoot chromes only and was such a "purist" that I have even told Ansel Adams son (in person) how I used to feel that his dad "cheated". Today, I have somewhat synthesized my purist and artist, hopefully toward "plausible realism" ... if that makes any sense.

For me, its not necessarily what came out of the camera, but what COULD have come out of the camera ... given the ever-changing aspects of ambient nature ... that I try to use as my guide. It's kinda like you wearing polarized glasses ... is that seeing reality because a correction has been applied ... or is that cheating because it wasn't what was really there at the time unless someone else uses polarization as well. For me, this is rooted in my "What's the point?" and "What is the message that you are trying to convey to your viewer?"

Is the point to be reality accurate ... or to convey the beauty of your "being there" with someone who wasn't able to be there with you. That of course is an individually preferenced answer, but I think once you have decide on your "point" of the image ... it becomes a bit more clear (for me at least) as to the viability of "plausible realism".

Rambled here ... but I hope it helps with the "reality" perspective that can be a bit binding at times ... while certainly understanding the desire to be true to the art & craft without corrupting / polluting it @ CGI rendering. It's a trick that I haven't got fully figured out just yet ... but I keep plugging & chugging.

As always, S&P to taste.




Edited on Jul 26, 2012 at 02:57 PM · View previous versions



Jul 26, 2012 at 02:34 PM
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Three secrets


RustyBug wrote:
Ben,

Gotcha ... good to hear. Just wondering @ tilt vs. stopping down farther than necessary.

+100 @ camera doesn't do it justice and it needs "assistance" to render it conceptually to what we experienced. As you have pointed out (which I aspire also) the desire for realism ... I extend that to "plausible realism". It may not have been exactly that ... but it certainly could have been given the ever changing lighting conditions of such a cloud filled sky for example.

As to the redo ... the mountain tops were a touch of "artistic representation" ... @ cloud filtered lighting to
...Show more

I always think my images are finished when I present them here which is a bit of a fraud on a C&C forum that has a label about "working an image". Yet they are not good enough for a presentation forum like landscape, probably because of my maverick ways with regards to the current artistic photo dogma.

Yet I know I have a lot of room for improvement in both capture and processing even to meet my own notions. This is a good place to get honest feed back even when I think I have a good one. I really appreciate it.

I also appreciate your explanations. I do not wish to be argumentative, but merely to have my goals understood and then seek ways to meet them.









Jul 26, 2012 at 02:51 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Three secrets


ben egbert wrote:
I also appreciate your explanations. I do not wish to be argumentative, but merely to have my goals understood and then seek ways to meet them.


Understood & respected.

I try to do that and hopefully my perspectives and explanations (also misunderstood at times) are not perceived as argumentative either ... even when they are contrasting.

Maverick ... or simply out of vogue by being classic and a bit "old school" ... or a bit of both. Bottom line ... its your work, its your point, its your message ... we mostly just share our tools. What you choose to "use or lose" of them ... totally up to you.

I am vastly grateful to the contributors of this forum. Without it, I'd be stuck in a very different place that I was in years ago following "cookie cutter" recipe's. Today, I have many more tools at my disposal. Some I use more judiciously than others and I always need refinement ... but it is a place to grow ... and with honest feedback that you can "take or leave", but still know it was honest. Of course, ask me again tomorrow and I may have honestly changed my mind.

I look forward to seeing much more of your work and exploration. I was recently blessed with a whirlwind tour of Southern Utah and would love to return. Until then, vicarious is the word of the day. Bring on the pics.





Edited on Jul 26, 2012 at 03:17 PM · View previous versions



Jul 26, 2012 at 03:01 PM
1
       2       3       end




FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password