Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Not worth it ?  (Read 28493 times)

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #100 on: November 25, 2013, 12:05:30 am »

I tend to approach most things from an analytical standpoint. I'm a "show me the data" kinda guy. But when it comes to photography and music—my two favorite creative pursuits—I find I'm best off allowing a more instinctual approach to prevail. I added a Pentax 645D to my photo toolkit not because of specs or because I'm interested in making big prints (I'm not) but because I saw modest-sized prints (by today's standards...15x20"s) made by an acquaintance who owns one...and I really liked them. They stood out tonally from other prints made by the same person with different tools. Exactly what precisely the tonal differences are and why they exist...I'm sure that can be quantified but I don't much care. I just know this camera along with those lenses does that thing, and I want (at least some of) my photos to have that look. And they do. I don't have to work for it in post...it's just there. For me that's the end of the story.

My taste in guitars is similar. I'm drawn to quirky instruments that may lack versatility but have a distinctive sound or an idiosyncratic feel. I own more practical & versatile guitars too but unless I'm playing with other people they seldom get used.

-Dave-
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11296
    • Echophoto
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #101 on: November 25, 2013, 12:18:55 am »

Hi Eric,

See the two examples below. Even if you remove the color aberration on the water the surface looks erratic, the waves are discontinuous. These effects increase with pixel size. Aliasing is not the same as moiré, even of moiré is an aliasing artefact. For that reason I think the pixels should be as small as possible. Smaller pixels are simply better. The third sample just shows smooth waves from a different part of the same image.

There are two ways to reduce aliasing, one is to reduce pixel size the other is reducing edge contrast (MTF) at pixel sizes. Reducing contrast can be achieved by either stopping down, defocusing or adding an OLP filter.

With a moderate reduction of pixel size, there will only be gains. The sensor sees still the same number of photons, just distributed over more pixels, so noise doesn't suffer. There will be a loss of engineering DR (1 stop if halving pixel diameter).

I don't think you would argue that a P25 gives better image quality than an IQ180, because of it having larger pixels? Also I am pretty sure that pixel size doesn't affect manufacturing costs. I guess the same components are used in all backs from a vendor (like IQ 1##-series). The sensor cost is related more to sensor area than to pixel size.

Just to be clear, I am shooting a lot with my P45+, and aliasing artefacts normally don't spoil my day, but I see far more of that than I would like.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,
I think you are stuck in a trap.   ;)   Let's call it the Engineer's trap.    The contents: Idea / composition, look, color, and feel are what most people experience in an image. Most people don't see what they don't know to look for.   Now that you know about fake detail, moire, aliasing, CA or whatever you tend to look for it - the engineers trap.  But don't forget about the content - how it feels to you - or at least don't' forget how other people view the images anyhow :)  What's the point of sweating over details that other people will overlook?

I'm coming at this discussion from the angle of what tends to enhance the perception of an image by a general viewing audience, and my experience has been that the larger the sensor, the better the feel or perception of depth is.  It's hard to quantify but its there at least to me.  

  
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 12:36:23 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13617
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #102 on: November 25, 2013, 12:50:45 am »

And getting back to this thread, I do think MF has that advantage over 35mm just like 35mm has it over the mobile phones.  The perception of depth seems to be tied to format size used in capture.  I'm interested to see bigger and bigger digital sensors - with not necessarily more pixels.

Agreed, there is something special about covering a wide field of view with a longer lens.

That's the great thing about stitching though. You can generate a very large virtual sensor and cover an angular view similar to that of a wide angle lens, but with a 100+ mm lens. You get the look and feel of 4x5, minus all the corner defects and plus the pixel level sharpness and dynamic range of modern DSLRs.

Of course, you can add light fall off and grain if required.  ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2613
    • Rolleiflex USA
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #103 on: November 25, 2013, 01:08:38 am »

Bernard,
That's an interesting point. Not so much of what I do personally allows for stitching so I never think of it as a solution, but one day I'll try that.

BJL,
Yes C) is the reason I think is the main reason.  This changes a lot actually - puts the details at a different rendered frequency more easily handled with by the lens, and the rate of roll off from the apex of focus through the DOF.

Erik,
Yeah could be smaller pixels help with moire / aliasing.  I hardly see moire with my 80mp back. But it's a trade off - smaller pixels don't support camera movements as well nor do they collect as much light. 
Logged
Rolleiflex USA

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11296
    • Echophoto
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #104 on: November 25, 2013, 01:28:03 am »

Hi,

The thing about camera movement is correct, but it may also have to do with some of the DALSA sensors having microlenses. The one used in the IQ180 definitively has microlenses but I read that the one on IQ160 has them, too.

I am not familiar with Aptus names, but do you feel that your back has more noise or worse DR than backs with lower resolution? The smaller pixels collect less light, individually, but there are more of them and they still collect the same amount of light. Having more pixels may reduce pixel/wiring ratio on the chip.

Here is a good discussion of the issue, but it is a long article and the relevant discussion starts half way:
 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras.shtml

Best regards
Erik



Erik,
Yeah could be smaller pixels help with moire / aliasing.  I hardly see moire with my 80mp back. But it's a trade off - smaller pixels don't support camera movements as well nor do they collect as much light.  
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 02:09:06 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11296
    • Echophoto
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #105 on: November 25, 2013, 01:35:46 am »

Hi,

I don't stitch a lot for getting more pixels, don't print that large. I started stitching to make wide images. Instead of cropping I stitched. Now that I am shooting MF I feel more limited by lenses, so I often stitch to extend field of view. Let's say that I need a 70 mm, lens but I have only 80 and 50 mm lenses, than I would try to make 2-3 images with the 80mm and stitch rather than use the 50 and crop.

With 35 mm I use zooms, mostly, so I can crop exactly as I want.

Zooming with my feet is mostly not very prcatical, as I cannot walk on water or float the in air. Moving point of view also affects perspective. So I try to find the best POV and make the best of it.

Best regards
Erik


Agreed, there is something special about covering a wide field of view with a longer lens.

That's the great thing about stitching though. You can generate a very large virtual sensor and cover an angular view similar to that of a wide angle lens, but with a 100+ mm lens. You get the look and feel of 4x5, minus all the corner defects and plus the pixel level sharpness and dynamic range of modern DSLRs.

Of course, you can add light fall off and grain if required.  ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 02:10:02 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #106 on: November 25, 2013, 05:47:30 am »

That's the great thing about stitching though. You can generate a very large virtual sensor and cover an angular view similar to that of a wide angle lens, but with a 100+ mm lens. You get the look and feel of 4x5, minus all the corner defects and plus the pixel level sharpness and dynamic range of modern DSLRs.
Not so good for shots involving spontaneity or movement though.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #107 on: November 25, 2013, 08:19:06 am »

Agreed, there is something special about covering a wide field of view with a longer lens.

That's the great thing about stitching though. You can generate a very large virtual sensor and cover an angular view similar to that of a wide angle lens, but with a 100+ mm lens. You get the look and feel of 4x5, minus all the corner defects and plus the pixel level sharpness and dynamic range of modern DSLRs.

Of course, you can add light fall off and grain if required.  ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

The DR of modern the dslr I don't see as a bonus, good in the shadows, bloody lawful with highlights or near highlights. HDR doesn't exactly tame it either.
I suspect most problems anyone has with skin tone is because of the poor highlight dr  and the lack of gradation in the top of the curve.
I shot some Portra alongside a 1DSIII as an experiment on a static subject a few years ago, I could get near natural looking images from the film scanning a 6 stop over exposed image, the Canon lost most of it a stop and a half over, 2 stops over and forget it. Yes mid tones were ok, highlight completely gone and colours above mid tone blown to bits.
No doubt the D800 might of improved things a bit, but not enough for me to think the dr of modern dslrs is a bonus. Seriously if you want to max your DR, shoot a roll of Portra, expose for the shadows, scan and process for the highlights, you will be surprised at the DR  available, you can take the image anywhere you want to.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 08:22:27 am by KevinA »
Logged
Kevin.

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13617
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #108 on: November 25, 2013, 09:00:32 am »

The DR of modern the dslr I don't see as a bonus, good in the shadows, bloody lawful with highlights or near highlights. HDR doesn't exactly tame it either.
I suspect most problems anyone has with skin tone is because of the poor highlight dr  and the lack of gradation in the top of the curve.
I shot some Portra alongside a 1DSIII as an experiment on a static subject a few years ago, I could get near natural looking images from the film scanning a 6 stop over exposed image, the Canon lost most of it a stop and a half over, 2 stops over and forget it. Yes mid tones were ok, highlight completely gone and colours above mid tone blown to bits.
No doubt the D800 might of improved things a bit, but not enough for me to think the dr of modern dslrs is a bonus. Seriously if you want to max your DR, shoot a roll of Portra, expose for the shadows, scan and process for the highlights, you will be surprised at the DR  available, you can take the image anywhere you want to.

Urban legend live long... ;)

There is no such thing as highlight DR with our CCDs/CMOS linear sensors. Be it on backs or DSLRs.

You've only got ISO over rating with backs that result in systematic underexposure by up to 2 stops at ISO100 (Phaseone backs example). I believe that this is were the impression of highlight headroom comes from, it can easily be emulated by dialing in a 1.5 stop underexposure on the D800.

Cheers,
Bernard

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #109 on: November 25, 2013, 10:08:10 am »

Bernard,

 The technology has changed; new CMOS sensors have highlight shoulders, by dint of adaptation of the well-known anti-blooming technology - furthermore these shoulders seem to be set in firmware. Of course the shoulders mess up the highlight color rendering because they are ... nonlinear :) On the bright side, the shoulders prevent totally burnt through holes on cheekbones foreheads and noses on every selfie.

Of course the old CCDs used in MF are linear. I really wish you were right and we had linear sensors and good color in the newer cams; but the trend is to more convenient so...


for CMOS here are some random numbers I made up for you

1.5 stops of the official ISO get chucked in the hilites (non linear, screwed up color reproduction at best). My friends say it is 1.3 stops.
2 stops get chucked in the shadows (read noise, amp noise, readout defects, miscalibration, banding)
1.5 stop gets chucked by moving to ISO 400 so you get a decent shutter speed, handheld
0.5 stops easily are lost to unbalanced light, more in incandescent hence the blue channel noise

so in real life your 14 stop dSLR camera shooting flowers handheld @ISO 800 in incandescent lighting has become an 8.5 or 8 stop camera at most. Talk about DR - ROTFL.
DBs may actually do better because they get used on tripods, closer to native ISO, in balanced light, have linear ceilings so you can use the ceiling DR if you expose VERY carefully, and hopefully accurate readout calibration.

As for urban legends, well some are true, some aren't, depends on who is doing the drinking and talking, but I'd say that when it comes to camera DR and the shooting of Kennedy anyone can have an opinion, orthodox or not, that's ok as long as they're happy about it.

Edmund

Urban legend live long... ;)

There is no such thing as highlight DR with our CCDs/CMOS linear sensors. Be it on backs or DSLRs.

You've only got ISO over rating with backs that result in systematic underexposure by up to 2 stops at ISO100 (Phaseone backs example). I believe that this is were the impression of highlight headroom comes from, it can easily be emulated by dialing in a 1.5 stop underexposure on the D800.

Cheers,
Bernard

« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 10:32:38 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #110 on: November 25, 2013, 11:37:21 am »

Urban legend live long... ;)

There is no such thing as highlight DR with our CCDs/CMOS linear sensors. Be it on backs or DSLRs.

You've only got ISO over rating with backs that result in systematic underexposure by up to 2 stops at ISO100 (Phaseone backs example). I believe that this is were the impression of highlight headroom comes from, it can easily be emulated by dialing in a 1.5 stop underexposure on the D800.

Cheers,
Bernard

Myth legend or whatever, digital is still crap with highlights and near highlights :-)
Logged
Kevin.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #111 on: November 25, 2013, 11:53:13 am »

Myth legend or whatever, digital is still crap with highlights and near highlights :-)


This is also experience: mine. It doesn't do them so well even when they are not actually clipped, just as Kevin indicates.  I've found myself faking bits of sky that should never have required any tender loving.

The only film I used that came close was Velvia 50.

Even for me, not all the G.O.Ds were free of faults.

Rob C

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1784
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #112 on: November 25, 2013, 11:59:04 am »

The DR of modern the dslr I don't see as a bonus, good in the shadows, bloody lawful with highlights or near highlights. HDR doesn't exactly tame it either.
I suspect most problems anyone has with skin tone is because of the poor highlight dr  and the lack of gradation in the top of the curve.
I shot some Portra alongside a 1DSIII as an experiment on a static subject a few years ago, I could get near natural looking images from the film scanning a 6 stop over exposed image, the Canon lost most of it a stop and a half over, 2 stops over and forget it. Yes mid tones were ok, highlight completely gone and colours above mid tone blown to bits.
No doubt the D800 might of improved things a bit, but not enough for me to think the dr of modern dslrs is a bonus. Seriously if you want to max your DR, shoot a roll of Portra, expose for the shadows, scan and process for the highlights, you will be surprised at the DR  available, you can take the image anywhere you want to.

Ok but flip it the other way and in the shadows the story is exactly the opposite. However you can underexpose the highlights until the point where they are treated well and bring up the shadows. I doubt one medium is superior to the other once you shoot it the right way to maximise quality. Especially these days.
Logged

Justinr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1733
    • Ink+images
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #113 on: November 25, 2013, 12:10:42 pm »

The DR of modern the dslr I don't see as a bonus, good in the shadows, bloody lawful with highlights or near highlights. HDR doesn't exactly tame it either.
I suspect most problems anyone has with skin tone is because of the poor highlight dr  and the lack of gradation in the top of the curve.
I shot some Portra alongside a 1DSIII as an experiment on a static subject a few years ago, I could get near natural looking images from the film scanning a 6 stop over exposed image, the Canon lost most of it a stop and a half over, 2 stops over and forget it. Yes mid tones were ok, highlight completely gone and colours above mid tone blown to bits.
No doubt the D800 might of improved things a bit, but not enough for me to think the dr of modern dslrs is a bonus. Seriously if you want to max your DR, shoot a roll of Portra, expose for the shadows, scan and process for the highlights, you will be surprised at the DR  available, you can take the image anywhere you want to.

On a side note may I ask what you are using to scan the film? My old flatbed which was one of the better models around in its time has gone kaput. It wasn't that good with transparencies anyway.
Logged

Justinr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1733
    • Ink+images
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #114 on: November 25, 2013, 12:18:15 pm »

Hi Eric,

See the two examples below. Even if you remove the color aberration on the water the surface looks erratic, the waves are discontinuous. These effects increase with pixel size. Aliasing is not the same as moiré, even of moiré is an aliasing artefact. For that reason I think the pixels should be as small as possible. Smaller pixels are simply better. The third sample just shows smooth waves from a different part of the same image.

There are two ways to reduce aliasing, one is to reduce pixel size the other is reducing edge contrast (MTF) at pixel sizes. Reducing contrast can be achieved by either stopping down, defocusing or adding an OLP filter.

With a moderate reduction of pixel size, there will only be gains. The sensor sees still the same number of photons, just distributed over more pixels, so noise doesn't suffer. There will be a loss of engineering DR (1 stop if halving pixel diameter).

I don't think you would argue that a P25 gives better image quality than an IQ180, because of it having larger pixels? Also I am pretty sure that pixel size doesn't affect manufacturing costs. I guess the same components are used in all backs from a vendor (like IQ 1##-series). The sensor cost is related more to sensor area than to pixel size.

Just to be clear, I am shooting a lot with my P45+, and aliasing artefacts normally don't spoil my day, but I see far more of that than I would like.

Best regards
Erik


I was under the impression that the advantage of larger pixels was that less photons would be lost through absorption by the wall of the well. Even though the number of photos experienced  by similar sized sensors may be the same the item with larger pixels would record more.
Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #115 on: November 25, 2013, 12:26:44 pm »

I don't understand why absolute pixel size should define the aliasing.
Wouldn't it be pixels per image width/height = resolution?

When imaging an object on a sensor in a a certain ratio, lets say 1:10, IMO the aliasing should be the same, be it large or small pixels, as long as the resolution is the same.
Lets say a D800e against a P40 - should have basically the same aliasing situation if focal lengths are chosen accordingly to give the same viewing angle/ratio.

What am I missing?

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #116 on: November 25, 2013, 02:33:40 pm »

...so in real life your 14 stop dSLR camera shooting flowers handheld @ISO 800 in incandescent lighting has become an 8.5 or 8 stop camera at most. Talk about DR - ROTFL.
DBs may actually do better because they get used on tripods, closer to native ISO, in balanced light, have linear ceilings so you can use the ceiling DR if you expose VERY carefully, and hopefully accurate readout calibration.

IMO 8 stops of DR ain't bad at all when most of the color photos you've (I've) taken have been on Kodachrome with its 5 or so lovely stops. My approach when using a camera that crushes highlight tones is to "underexpose" enough to move those tones into linear territory. As with transparency film let the shadows fall where they will. Use HDR technique (with subtlety, please) if/when desired.

I think having a background in transparency film gives a person a better appreciation of both the benefits and drawbacks of electronic photography. You can see technological limitations as boundaries to be leaned against rather than as barriers blocking your way.

-Dave-
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1516
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #117 on: November 25, 2013, 02:52:49 pm »

IMO 8 stops of DR ain't bad at all when most of the color photos you've (I've) taken have been on Kodachrome with its 5 or so lovely stops. My approach when using a camera that crushes highlight tones is to "underexpose" enough to move those tones into linear territory. As with transparency film let the shadows fall where they will. Use HDR technique (with subtlety, please) if/when desired.

I think having a background in transparency film gives a person a better appreciation of both the benefits and drawbacks of electronic photography. You can see technological limitations as boundaries to be leaned against rather than as barriers blocking your way.

-Dave-

I agree, most people today seem to think the idea of having 5 stops of dr or some noise and they'd go crazy when in reality nearly every image that is worked down in post to be pretty is always crushed to about 4 or 5 stops.

Right before I went to digital, I shot provia for commercial work, because it pushed so well.  Wasn't that pretty a film, but workable.

I shoot a great deal of lingerie and holding white's with transparency film was an exercise in science as well as art and I found if I would underexposed at least a full stop and have a good drum scan, I could move it anywhere I wanted.

Actually, what you just described.   

The only issue with this in film was it was difficult to explain to a client that this dark piece of celluloid would be ok in a few hours..

IMO

BC
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #118 on: November 25, 2013, 03:01:15 pm »

Hey, J, you should be more philosophical, like "only the image in your head to  bring out DR is".

Edmund

I agree, most people today seem to think the idea of having 5 stops of dr or some noise and they'd go crazy when in reality nearly every image that is worked down in post to be pretty is always crushed to about 4 or 5 stops.

Right before I went to digital, I shot provia for commercial work, because it pushed so well.  Wasn't that pretty a film, but workable.

I shoot a great deal of lingerie and holding white's with transparency film was an exercise in science as well as art and I found if I would underexposed at least a full stop and have a good drum scan, I could move it anywhere I wanted.

Actually, what you just described.   

The only issue with this in film was it was difficult to explain to a client that this dark piece of celluloid would be ok in a few hours..

IMO

BC
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11296
    • Echophoto
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #119 on: November 25, 2013, 03:10:45 pm »

Hi,

When a lens project an image on the sensor the projected image will have a certain resolution. If you photograph a star, the image will not be a single spot, but a small disk. If that disk is smaller than a pixel and it falls across a pair of pixels the different situations are possible:

1) Both pixels see it
2) Neither pixels see it
3) Either pixel sees it but not another

So details smaller than pixel size can not be resolved by the sensor. The response to the same disk can be different if the pixel is moved a tiny little bit.

Check out the enclosed image, it was taken with 150 mm at f/8 alt f/9 at 3.5 m distance on a:

- Top left P45+  (MFD, 6.9 my pixels, not AA filtered)
- Bottom left Sony Alpha 99 (6 my pixels, AA filtered)
- Right Sony Alpha 77 (3.9 My pixels AA filtered)

Neither sensor on the left can reproduce detail correctly. We can see cross hatch detail and incontinous strains. In the image on the right the 3.9 my pixels of  the SLT make a better job. The ideal combination would be the surface area of the P45+ and the pixel size of the Alpha 77, corresponding to 120 Megapixels.

Another way to see it:

I have measured MTF for my Zeiss Sonnar 150/4 that was used on the Hasselblad, it looks like this:


Now, if we check the black curve, we can see that at Nyquist limit (120 lp/mm) on the SLT 77 the lens has an MTF of 4% (or so). This is to low to cause a lot of aliasing.

The P45+ has a pixel size of 6.9 microns, corresponding to 72 lp/mm, here the MTF is around 22%, more than enough to cause significant aliasing.

Best regards
Erik


I don't understand why absolute pixel size should define the aliasing.
Wouldn't it be pixels per image width/height = resolution?

When imaging an object on a sensor in a a certain ratio, lets say 1:10, IMO the aliasing should be the same, be it large or small pixels, as long as the resolution is the same.
Lets say a D800e against a P40 - should have basically the same aliasing situation if focal lengths are chosen accordingly to give the same viewing angle/ratio.

What am I missing?
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 03:29:58 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Up