Manual Focus Nikon Glass
p.2632 #1Manual Focus Nikon Glass
jimmuller wrote:
He! I'll tell that to the ducks next time. They will appreciate it, I'm sure. 
Yes, they are beautiful, also skittish and reclusive. There were actually two pairs. One pair flew off immediately. I had time to get three non-burst, manual-focus pics before these flew off too. They were below us and too far away for a good close-up even with the 300mm. An uncropped version:
http://www.SouthernRail.com/pics/Z5/WoodDucksUncropped.jpg
As for the light, the sun was in fact behind us but the sky was overcast, flat white. With bright sun the trees would have put the ducks in shadow, and from that angle the...Show more →
Ya have to deal with what you have. With Photoshop's history brush you can adjust just the ducks. Gimp has some work-arounds to approximate the history brush, and Paintshop pro may as well. The idea is to adjust the photo just for the ducks, then paint that adjustment onto the original photo. The original remains the same, and just the ducks get fixed. It's a rabbit hole, because you can divide an image into a bunch of pieces and make an idealized version of the scene - something your eye never saw. Did i mention I was a marketing photographer? It's an affliction
James Markus wrote
That wood duck is one of the most beautiful critters on earth. Get the light behind you - magicYes, they are beautiful, also skittish and reclusive. There were actually two pairs. One pair flew off immediately. I had time to get three non-burst, manual-focus pics before these flew off too. They were below us and too far away for a good close-up even with the 300mm. An uncropped version:
http://www.SouthernRail.com/pics/Z5/WoodDucksUncropped.jpg
As for the light, the sun was in fact behind us but the sky was overcast, flat white. With bright sun the trees would have put the ducks in shadow, and from that angle the...Show more →
Ya have to deal with what you have. With Photoshop's history brush you can adjust just the ducks. Gimp has some work-arounds to approximate the history brush, and Paintshop pro may as well. The idea is to adjust the photo just for the ducks, then paint that adjustment onto the original photo. The original remains the same, and just the ducks get fixed. It's a rabbit hole, because you can divide an image into a bunch of pieces and make an idealized version of the scene - something your eye never saw. Did i mention I was a marketing photographer? It's an affliction
May 03, 2026 at 03:16 PM
p.2632 #2Manual Focus Nikon Glass
From the first roll of Kodak 2238 film I've ever used
Nikon N90S with the Nikkor 16mm f3.5 ai Kodak-2238 film at 25-iso Rodinal 1+50 16min 70-degrees
Nikon N90S with the Nikkor 16mm f3.5 ai Kodak-2238 film at 25-iso Rodinal 1+50 16min 70-degrees
May 03, 2026 at 03:45 PM
p.2632 #3Manual Focus Nikon Glass
Third one is awesome. I love the deep blacks.
James Markus wrote:
From the first roll of Kodak 2238 film I've ever used
Nikon N90S with the Nikkor 16mm f3.5 ai Kodak-2238 film at 25-iso Rodinal 1+50 16min 70-degrees
James Markus wrote:
From the first roll of Kodak 2238 film I've ever used
Nikon N90S with the Nikkor 16mm f3.5 ai Kodak-2238 film at 25-iso Rodinal 1+50 16min 70-degrees
May 03, 2026 at 04:05 PM
p.2632 #4Manual Focus Nikon Glass
James Markus wrote:
Ya have to deal with what you have. ...It's a rabbit hole, because you can divide an image into a bunch of pieces and make an idealized version of the scene - something your eye never saw. Did i mention I was a marketing photographer? It's an affliction
Yeah, I know. I've done some image manipulation. F'rinstance, we once had a nice real band photo on our website. Then we had a personnel change. Rather than find an opportunity for another photo shoot, fiendishly difficult sometimes, I found a photo of the new guy with the light coming from roughly the right direction, resized his head to match ours, and PaintShopped (not PhotoShopped) him into the photo. I then painstakingly pasted tiny patches of background around his head to completely hide the fact that it wasn't real. More than one person wanted to know how I did that. IIRC, the cover photo on our DVD was the same thing, a pic with a different band member from a different concert. I don't have the patience to do that now!
But more to the point, I'm partial to the concept of the pic being more or less as seen. You marketing guys can create idealized pics because that's what you're supposed to do. I'll do some sharpening if necessary in conjunction with resizing, every so often play with brightness/contrast (which I could have done with those ducks, tried a little but it didn't help much). A tiny vibrancy tweak on rare occasion. I rarely do much else. I don't want it to look enhanced. Not sure how well that succeeds to experienced eyes though.
[This note is growing long but I might as well finish the thought.]
Shortly after I joined FM I read a thread in the Wildlife forum in which a guy asked for opinions. He had taken a well-executed though static hawk portrait, totally modified the background to look like it was in deep woods or jungle instead of the suburbs, changed what the hawk was sitting on etc. He even showed how he had done it all. The result struck me as an example of 19th century idealism in art or literature, but not a hawk photograph at all. It might as well have been painted, or composed by AI. Another guy had changed an awesome, dynamic hawk pic to have it landing on a tree branch instead of a power line. But the power line is now part of that hawk's environment, natural or not. I watched a "how to" video in which a guy modified a great mountains & lake landscape shot to be what he thought it should be instead of what the scene actually looked like. It might have been great for a travel agency ad. But I've seen and walked over lots of mountains and that didn't quite look real. Had it been my vacation pic I would have preferred the original. I certainly wouldn't show the result to friends as what it looked like when I was there. Then some months later I read an interview with an editor for Nat Geo about what was and wasn't acceptable. Besides the fact that the landscape and that first hawk pic were static and uninteresting, all three would have been disqualified immediately for exactly the editing their creators had done.
It's a personal preference. I was never a Marketing Photographer and never played one on TV. I kant even spel fotawgrafer most of the time. So I just try to record what I see, sometimes things we all look at but don't see, and anything I especially want to remember or share. I'll close by sharing a pic from today's walk, a pic I want to remember.
L to R: My sweetie Sharon and two friends who happen to be sisters. Taken with the 55mm f/3.5 AI Micro.
BTW, I love those B&W pics!
Ya have to deal with what you have. ...It's a rabbit hole, because you can divide an image into a bunch of pieces and make an idealized version of the scene - something your eye never saw. Did i mention I was a marketing photographer? It's an affliction
Yeah, I know. I've done some image manipulation. F'rinstance, we once had a nice real band photo on our website. Then we had a personnel change. Rather than find an opportunity for another photo shoot, fiendishly difficult sometimes, I found a photo of the new guy with the light coming from roughly the right direction, resized his head to match ours, and PaintShopped (not PhotoShopped) him into the photo. I then painstakingly pasted tiny patches of background around his head to completely hide the fact that it wasn't real. More than one person wanted to know how I did that. IIRC, the cover photo on our DVD was the same thing, a pic with a different band member from a different concert. I don't have the patience to do that now!
But more to the point, I'm partial to the concept of the pic being more or less as seen. You marketing guys can create idealized pics because that's what you're supposed to do.
I'll do some sharpening if necessary in conjunction with resizing, every so often play with brightness/contrast (which I could have done with those ducks, tried a little but it didn't help much). A tiny vibrancy tweak on rare occasion. I rarely do much else. I don't want it to look enhanced. Not sure how well that succeeds to experienced eyes though.[This note is growing long but I might as well finish the thought.]
Shortly after I joined FM I read a thread in the Wildlife forum in which a guy asked for opinions. He had taken a well-executed though static hawk portrait, totally modified the background to look like it was in deep woods or jungle instead of the suburbs, changed what the hawk was sitting on etc. He even showed how he had done it all. The result struck me as an example of 19th century idealism in art or literature, but not a hawk photograph at all. It might as well have been painted, or composed by AI. Another guy had changed an awesome, dynamic hawk pic to have it landing on a tree branch instead of a power line. But the power line is now part of that hawk's environment, natural or not. I watched a "how to" video in which a guy modified a great mountains & lake landscape shot to be what he thought it should be instead of what the scene actually looked like. It might have been great for a travel agency ad. But I've seen and walked over lots of mountains and that didn't quite look real. Had it been my vacation pic I would have preferred the original. I certainly wouldn't show the result to friends as what it looked like when I was there. Then some months later I read an interview with an editor for Nat Geo about what was and wasn't acceptable. Besides the fact that the landscape and that first hawk pic were static and uninteresting, all three would have been disqualified immediately for exactly the editing their creators had done.
It's a personal preference. I was never a Marketing Photographer and never played one on TV. I kant even spel fotawgrafer most of the time. So I just try to record what I see, sometimes things we all look at but don't see, and anything I especially want to remember or share. I'll close by sharing a pic from today's walk, a pic I want to remember.
L to R: My sweetie Sharon and two friends who happen to be sisters. Taken with the 55mm f/3.5 AI Micro.
 |
||
 |
||
|
BTW, I love those B&W pics!
May 03, 2026 at 06:23 PM
p.2632 #5Manual Focus Nikon Glass
kwoodard wrote:
Third one is awesome. I love the deep blacks.
Nikon N90S with the Nikkor 16mm f3.5 ai Kodak-2238 film at 25-iso Rodinal 1+50 16min 70-degrees
Thanks Kevin. I had to make a new scanning setting to deal with the super clear base of the film.
Third one is awesome. I love the deep blacks.
James Markus wrote
From the first roll of Kodak 2238 film I've ever usedNikon N90S with the Nikkor 16mm f3.5 ai Kodak-2238 film at 25-iso Rodinal 1+50 16min 70-degrees
Thanks Kevin. I had to make a new scanning setting to deal with the super clear base of the film.
May 03, 2026 at 07:38 PM
p.2632 #6Manual Focus Nikon Glass
jimmuller wrote:
Yeah, I know. I've done some image manipulation. F'rinstance, we once had a nice real band photo on our website. Then we had a personnel change. Rather than find an opportunity for another photo shoot, fiendishly difficult sometimes, I found a photo of the new guy with the light coming from roughly the right direction, resized his head to match ours, and PaintShopped (not PhotoShopped) him into the photo. I then painstakingly pasted tiny patches of background around his head to completely hide the fact that it wasn't real. More than one person wanted to know how I did that....Show more →
The photogs in editorial dept thought of themselves as purist or "light scribes". We enjoyed lots of banter about the different constraints we each operated under. A famous lost week of discussion was spent on a sports photo that won an award, but then in was later learned the photographer had cloned out an audience members foot. Just the foot behind a chain link fence in the very bottom right corner. It added nothing to the story, and the quick legal edit was to crop it out, but that destroyed the composition.
What I did was sell ideas - you know - the condensation coated glass on a hot sunny day. It was great fun, and photographers can be really inventive.
James Markus wrote
Ya have to deal with what you have. ...It's a rabbit hole, because you can divide an image into a bunch of pieces and make an idealized version of the scene - something your eye never saw. Did i mention I was a marketing photographer? It's an afflictionThe photogs in editorial dept thought of themselves as purist or "light scribes". We enjoyed lots of banter about the different constraints we each operated under. A famous lost week of discussion was spent on a sports photo that won an award, but then in was later learned the photographer had cloned out an audience members foot. Just the foot behind a chain link fence in the very bottom right corner. It added nothing to the story, and the quick legal edit was to crop it out, but that destroyed the composition.
What I did was sell ideas - you know - the condensation coated glass on a hot sunny day. It was great fun, and photographers can be really inventive.
May 03, 2026 at 07:47 PM
p.2632 #7Manual Focus Nikon Glass
Look at me.
Nikon AI 135 3,5.
Portrait | Parc de Saint-Cloud by lumens pixel, sur Flickr
Nikon AI 135 3,5.
Portrait | Parc de Saint-Cloud by lumens pixel, sur FlickrMay 04, 2026 at 04:49 AM
p.2632 #8Manual Focus Nikon Glass
milt wrote:
Sorry, I just saw your post today. I’ve (once again) broken my ankle (this time it’s the right one) and with the end of the semester, things have been pretty chaotic on my end.
That said, I absolutely love the 45mm f/2.8, it’s one of my favorites. It’s small, lightweight, and I really love the images it produces. Mine was almost new when I bought it and has been perfect. I’d definitely recommend going for it.
This was the first photo I ever posted on this forum (I used the 45mm f/2.8P):
No worries, Regina. Sorry about your ankles having a tough life, of late. I hope for your complete healing before Summer is over. All the best.
Sorry, I just saw your post today. I’ve (once again) broken my ankle (this time it’s the right one) and with the end of the semester, things have been pretty chaotic on my end.
That said, I absolutely love the 45mm f/2.8, it’s one of my favorites. It’s small, lightweight, and I really love the images it produces. Mine was almost new when I bought it and has been perfect. I’d definitely recommend going for it.
This was the first photo I ever posted on this forum (I used the 45mm f/2.8P):
No worries, Regina. Sorry about your ankles having a tough life, of late. I hope for your complete healing before Summer is over. All the best.
May 04, 2026 at 06:28 AM
p.2632 #9Manual Focus Nikon Glass
Prepare for real art with an art lens!!!!!!
NIKKOR 55MM 1.2 O CRT Z6 TEST 00 _01 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
Nikkor 55mm 1.2 Oscilloscope orchid-1-60 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
Nikkor 55mm 1.2 Oscilloscope orchid-1-52 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
NIKKOR 55MM 1.2 O CRT Z6 TEST 00 _01 by Rafael Batlle, on FlickrNikkor 55mm 1.2 Oscilloscope orchid-1-60 by Rafael Batlle, on FlickrNikkor 55mm 1.2 Oscilloscope orchid-1-52 by Rafael Batlle, on FlickrMay 04, 2026 at 03:46 PM
p.2632 #10Manual Focus Nikon Glass
rafaelcasd wrote:
Prepare for real art with an art lens!!!!!!
I was always intrigued by the Oscilloscope-Nikkor. At f/1.2 it is obviously super-fast compared to most of the macro-range Nikkors. Probably this was to allow capture of relatively dim oscilloscope traces, but what were the optical implications/compromises of that fast speed? Enquiring minds want to know..
And congrats on finding a super minty copy!
Edited on May 04, 2026 at 04:47 PM · View previous versions
Prepare for real art with an art lens!!!!!!
I was always intrigued by the Oscilloscope-Nikkor. At f/1.2 it is obviously super-fast compared to most of the macro-range Nikkors. Probably this was to allow capture of relatively dim oscilloscope traces, but what were the optical implications/compromises of that fast speed? Enquiring minds want to know..
And congrats on finding a super minty copy!
Edited on May 04, 2026 at 04:47 PM · View previous versions
May 04, 2026 at 04:32 PM
|
p.2632 #11Manual Focus Nikon Glass
55mm f/3.5 AI Micro
Unknown by James Muller, on Flickr
Unknown by James Muller, on FlickrMay 04, 2026 at 04:36 PM
p.2632 #12Manual Focus Nikon Glass
rafaelcasd wrote:
Prepare for real art with an art lens!!!!!!
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51806779264_0d3de37498_h.jpgNIKKOR 55MM 1.2 O CRT Z6 TEST 00 _01 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55249513568_410dfe036f_h.jpgNikkor 55mm 1.2 Oscilloscope orchid-1-60 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55249513983_f83e9d0d21_h.jpgNikkor 55mm 1.2 Oscilloscope orchid-1-52 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
Lens looks new - congratulations. Love the lighting on the third one.
May 04, 2026 at 05:16 PM
p.2632 #13Manual Focus Nikon Glass
Be sure you get that warranty card in within 10 days 😉
rafaelcasd wrote:
Prepare for real art with an art lens!!!!!!
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51806779264_0d3de37498_h.jpgNIKKOR 55MM 1.2 O CRT Z6 TEST 00 _01 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55249513568_410dfe036f_h.jpgNikkor 55mm 1.2 Oscilloscope orchid-1-60 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55249513983_f83e9d0d21_h.jpgNikkor 55mm 1.2 Oscilloscope orchid-1-52 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
rafaelcasd wrote:
Prepare for real art with an art lens!!!!!!
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51806779264_0d3de37498_h.jpgNIKKOR 55MM 1.2 O CRT Z6 TEST 00 _01 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55249513568_410dfe036f_h.jpgNikkor 55mm 1.2 Oscilloscope orchid-1-60 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55249513983_f83e9d0d21_h.jpgNikkor 55mm 1.2 Oscilloscope orchid-1-52 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
May 04, 2026 at 06:35 PM
p.2632 #14Manual Focus Nikon Glass
rafaelcasd wrote:
Prepare for real art with an art lens!!!!!!
Wow, you're now an official member of Red Book Japan: https://redbook-jp.com/redbook-e/
There are two owner links to your Nikkor-O 55/1.2, and they include specs, datasheets and galleries. An interesting fact is the optimal range is 1:5 which resembles the CZ process lenses of that era: my S-Planar 60/2.8 (1:10) and S-Planar 100/4 (1:4).
Prepare for real art with an art lens!!!!!!
Wow, you're now an official member of Red Book Japan: https://redbook-jp.com/redbook-e/
There are two owner links to your Nikkor-O 55/1.2, and they include specs, datasheets and galleries. An interesting fact is the optimal range is 1:5 which resembles the CZ process lenses of that era: my S-Planar 60/2.8 (1:10) and S-Planar 100/4 (1:4).
May 04, 2026 at 08:40 PM
p.2632 #15Manual Focus Nikon Glass
OMG Regina, how the heck did you do that?!? At least you're home in MA, rather than overseas.
milt wrote:
I must confess I’ve been loving the Contax 45mm Tessar for its size on an old A7, but then I don’t get to play here. GAS focused on a 45mm P is growing…Regina (@milt) used to post lovely images from the lens. Three examples,...
Here,
here, and here.Sorry, I just saw your post today. I’ve (once again) broken my ankle (this time it’s the right one) and with the end of the semester, things have been pretty chaotic on my end.
That said, I absolutely love the 45mm f/2.8, it’s one of my favorites. It’s small, lightweight, and I really love the images it produces. Mine was almost new when I bought it and has been perfect. I’d definitely recommend going for it.
This was the first photo I ever posted on this forum (I used the 45mm f/2.8P):
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52952381212_1b47094d1a_b.jpg_DSC1758 by Regina, on Flickr
milt wrote:
SiMuMe wrote
AdaptedLenses wrote
Figured I’d ask here and solicit shots from the 45mm f/2.8 P, any users or experience?I must confess I’ve been loving the Contax 45mm Tessar for its size on an old A7, but then I don’t get to play here. GAS focused on a 45mm P is growing…
Here,
here, and here.
That said, I absolutely love the 45mm f/2.8, it’s one of my favorites. It’s small, lightweight, and I really love the images it produces. Mine was almost new when I bought it and has been perfect. I’d definitely recommend going for it.
This was the first photo I ever posted on this forum (I used the 45mm f/2.8P):
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52952381212_1b47094d1a_b.jpg_DSC1758 by Regina, on Flickr
May 05, 2026 at 01:54 AM
p.2632 #16Manual Focus Nikon Glass
Be extra careful with the knee walker, they've been known to tip and toss. Glad your son is helping you.
milt wrote:
Good heavens. (I hope it wasn't from a bicycle accident.) Seein' as how we are essentially neighbors (and I am now officially retired with free time), if you need anything I'll be happy to help if I can.No, it wasn’t from a bicycle accident. I twisted my ankle badly at home. Thanks so much, Jim, I really appreciated the offer. My son is here helping me, and I’ve got a knee walker, so I’m getting around the house pretty well (fingers crossed I don’t injure the other ankle!).
milt wrote:
jimmuller wrote
milt wrote
Sorry, I just saw your post today. I’ve (once again) broken my ankle (this time it’s the right one) and with the end of the semester, things have been pretty chaotic on my end.May 05, 2026 at 01:57 AM
p.2632 #17Manual Focus Nikon Glass
NightOwl Cat wrote:
Be extra careful with the knee walker, they've been known to tip and toss. Glad your son is helping you.
Good heavens. (I hope it wasn't from a bicycle accident.) Seein' as how we are essentially neighbors (and I am now officially retired with free time), if you need anything I'll be happy to help if I can.No, it wasn’t from a bicycle accident. I twisted my ankle badly at home. Thanks so much, Jim, I really appreciated the offer. My son is here helping me, and I’ve got a knee walker, so I’m getting around the house pretty well (fingers crossed I don’t injure the other ankle!).
Thanks. I have been very careful.
Be extra careful with the knee walker, they've been known to tip and toss. Glad your son is helping you.
milt wrote
jimmuller wrote
milt wrote
Sorry, I just saw your post today. I’ve (once again) broken my ankle (this time it’s the right one) and with the end of the semester, things have been pretty chaotic on my end.Thanks. I have been very careful.
May 05, 2026 at 05:03 AM
p.2632 #18Manual Focus Nikon Glass
NightOwl Cat wrote:
OMG Regina, how the heck did you do that?!? At least you're home in MA, rather than overseas.
I must confess I’ve been loving the Contax 45mm Tessar for its size on an old A7, but then I don’t get to play here. GAS focused on a 45mm P is growing…Regina (@milt) used to post lovely images from the lens. Three examples,...
Here,
here, and here.Sorry, I just saw your post today. I’ve (once again) broken my ankle (this time it’s the right one) and with the end of the semester, things have been pretty chaotic on my end.
That said, I absolutely love the 45mm f/2.8, it’s one of my favorites. It’s small, lightweight, and I really love the images it produces. Mine was almost new when I bought it and has been perfect. I’d definitely recommend going for it.
This was the first photo I ever posted on this forum (I used the 45mm f/2.8P):
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52952381212_1b47094d1a_b.jpg_DSC1758 by Regina, on Flickr
Yes, this time was better. I am home. And I was supposed to travel on June 4th!!! I had to change my trip to August.
OMG Regina, how the heck did you do that?!? At least you're home in MA, rather than overseas.
milt wrote
SiMuMe wrote
AdaptedLenses wrote
Figured I’d ask here and solicit shots from the 45mm f/2.8 P, any users or experience?I must confess I’ve been loving the Contax 45mm Tessar for its size on an old A7, but then I don’t get to play here. GAS focused on a 45mm P is growing…
Here,
here, and here.
That said, I absolutely love the 45mm f/2.8, it’s one of my favorites. It’s small, lightweight, and I really love the images it produces. Mine was almost new when I bought it and has been perfect. I’d definitely recommend going for it.
This was the first photo I ever posted on this forum (I used the 45mm f/2.8P):
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52952381212_1b47094d1a_b.jpg_DSC1758 by Regina, on Flickr
Yes, this time was better. I am home. And I was supposed to travel on June 4th!!! I had to change my trip to August.
May 05, 2026 at 05:06 AM
p.2632 #19Manual Focus Nikon Glass
Blimey Regina !
Maybe we can help by posting pics so you can virtually get "out and about" while you recuperate
Here's a 2 shot stitch of the wharf in Queenstown with the Zf and the Nikkor S.C. 55mm f/1.2 taken last week for you !
DSC_5688-Pano-Edit by Andy MacDougall, on Flickr
Andy
Maybe we can help by posting pics so you can virtually get "out and about" while you recuperate
Here's a 2 shot stitch of the wharf in Queenstown with the Zf and the Nikkor S.C. 55mm f/1.2 taken last week for you !
DSC_5688-Pano-Edit by Andy MacDougall, on Flickr Andy
May 05, 2026 at 05:10 AM
p.2632 #20Manual Focus Nikon Glass
cadman342001 wrote:
Blimey Regina !
Maybe we can help by posting pics so you can virtually get "out and about" while you recuperate
Here's a 2 shot stitch of the wharf in Queenstown with the Zf and the Nikkor S.C. 55mm f/1.2 taken last week for you !
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55250539574_281cc0ecb6_h.jpgDSC_5688-Pano-Edit by Andy MacDougall, on Flickr
Andy
Thanks Andy. Next week I will be more "mobile" and also on vacation.
Blimey Regina !
Maybe we can help by posting pics so you can virtually get "out and about" while you recuperate
Here's a 2 shot stitch of the wharf in Queenstown with the Zf and the Nikkor S.C. 55mm f/1.2 taken last week for you !
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55250539574_281cc0ecb6_h.jpgDSC_5688-Pano-Edit by Andy MacDougall, on Flickr
Andy
Thanks Andy. Next week I will be more "mobile" and also on vacation.
May 05, 2026 at 05:17 AM